1 Thursday, 30 June 2016
3 [Open session]
4 [The appellants entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 3.30 p.m.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon, everybody.
7 Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case
9 IT-08-91-A, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Before we commence, I want to make sure that
11 the parties can follow the proceedings in a language that they
13 I'll start with Mr. Stanisic. Mr. Stanisic, you heard my
15 THE APPELLANT STANISIC: [Interpretation] I understand and -- I
16 hear and understand the proceedings. Thank you.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Stanisic.
18 Mr. Zupljanin, same question.
19 THE APPELLANT ZUPLJANIN: [Interpretation] Same answer from me.
20 Also, I hear you very well. Thank you.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, both.
22 Can I now please proceed to have the appearances of the parties,
23 starting with the Prosecution.
24 MS. BAIG: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Laurel Baig for the
25 Prosecution, joined by my colleagues Aditya Menon, Tod Schneider,
1 Grace Harbour, and Case Manager Janet Stewart.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, madam.
3 Appearances for Mr. Stanisic.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good afternoon.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Appearing for Mico Stanisic today, myself,
7 Slobodan Zecevic, lead counsel; Stephane Bourgon, co-counsel; and our
8 colleagues Isabelle Martineau, James Jackson, and Relja Radovic. Thank
9 you very much.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
11 Defence for Mr. Zupljanin.
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
13 Dragan Krgovic, Tatjana Cmeric, Christopher Gosnell, Chad Mair, and
14 Milena Dzvdovic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
16 Pursuant to a Scheduling Order issued on 2nd June 2016, the
17 Appeals Chamber today delivers its judgement in the case of the
18 Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
19 I shall now read out a summary of the central findings of the
20 Appeals Chamber. The summary does not constitute the official and
21 authoritative judgement of the Appeals Chamber. The official judgement
22 is rendered in writing and will be distributed to the parties at the
23 close of this hearing.
24 This case relates to events which took place in Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina from at least the 1st of April 1992 to at least
1 December 1992. Throughout this period, Mr. Stanisic was the minister of
2 the Ministry of Interior of the Republika Srpska. I will be referring as
3 I go along to this as the RS MUP. And RS for Republika Srpska. By
4 virtue of this position, he was also a member of the government of the
5 Republika Srpska and Mr. Zupljanin was the chief of the regional Security
6 Services Centre, which I will refer to as the CSB. In addition, from at
7 least the 5th of May 1992 until July 1992, Mr. Zupljanin was a member of
8 the Autonomous Region of Krajina Crisis Staff. I will at times refer to
9 this as the ARK Crisis Staff. When I further on will mention appellants,
10 that means I am referring to both Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Stanisic.
11 The Trial Chamber found that during the indictment period,
12 serious crimes were committed in the 20 municipalities listed in the
13 indictment, including the eight municipalities in the Autonomous Region
14 of Krajina. I will be referring to these as municipalities and ARK
15 municipalities as I go along. And the Trial Chamber also found that
16 these serious crimes affected thousands of victims. The Trial Chamber
17 found that the appellants participated in a joint criminal enterprise
18 with the objective to "permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian
19 Croats from the territory of the planned Serbian state. I will be
20 referring to this as the JCE. It also found that this objective was
21 implemented through the crimes of deportation, other inhumane acts
22 consisting of forcible transfer, and persecutions through underlying acts
23 of forcible transfer and deportation as crimes against humanity. These I
24 will be referring to as we go along as JCE I crimes.
25 The Trial Chamber further found that it was foreseeable for
1 Mr. Stanisic that persecutions as a crime against humanity, murder,
2 torture, and cruel treatment as violations of the laws or customs of war,
3 as well as murder, torture, and inhumane acts as crime against humanity,
4 could be committed in the implementation of the JCE. These I will be
5 referring to as we go along as Mr. Stanisic's JCE III crimes.
6 The Trial Chamber found that it was foreseeable to Mr. Zupljanin
7 that the same crimes and extermination as a crime against humanity could
8 be committed. I will refer to these collectively as Mr. Zupljanin's JCE
9 III crimes.
10 The Trial Chamber convicted the appellants pursuant to the first
11 category of JCE for persecutions through forcible transfer and
12 deportation as a crime against humanity. It convicted them pursuant the
13 third category of joint criminal enterprise for persecutions through
14 several underlying acts as a crime against humanity and for murder and
15 torture as violations of the laws or customs of war. In addition,
16 Mr. Zupljanin was convicted pursuant to the third category of JCE for
17 extermination and for ordering persecutions through plunder of property.
18 The Trial Chamber also found the appellants responsible for
19 murder, torture, inhumane acts, deportation, and inhumane acts consisting
20 of forcible transfer as crimes against humanity and cruel treatment as a
21 violation of the laws or customs of war but did not enter convictions for
22 these crimes on the basis of the principles relating to cumulative
24 The appellants were both sentenced to 22 years of imprisonment.
25 Mr. Stanisic raises 16 grounds of appeal; while Mr. Zupljanin
1 raises six grounds of appeal. The Prosecution, as I said, has also
2 appealed and raises two grounds of appeal.
3 The Appeals Chamber heard oral submissions by the parties on
4 16th December 2015. I will now summarise the Appeals Chamber's findings
5 on the appellants' and the Prosecution's appeals, addressing first the
6 submissions made by the appellants in relation to fair trail.
7 Mr. Stanisic, in his ground of appeal 1 bis, and Mr. Zupljanin,
8 in his sixth ground of appeal, submit that their right to a fair trial by
9 an independent and impartial Tribunal or Court was violated as a result
10 of the participation of Judge Frederick Harhoff in the trial proceedings,
11 which they argue invalidates their convictions.
12 The Appeals Chamber finds that, contrary to the appellants'
13 submissions, Judge Harhoff's disqualification in the Seselj case does not
14 automatically disqualify him from other cases, and that the appellants
15 have failed to demonstrate that a reasonable observer, properly informed
16 of all the relevant circumstances, would reasonably apprehend bias on the
17 part of Judge Harhoff in this case. According, the appellants have
18 failed to rebut the presumption of impartiality and failed to firmly
19 establish a reasonable appearance of bias on the part of Judge Harhoff.
20 Mr. Stanisic's ground of appeal 1 bis and Mr. Zupljanin's sixth
21 ground of appeal are therefore dismissed.
22 Before moving to the Appeals Chamber's findings on the remaining
23 challenges by the appellants, I note that the Appeals Chamber considers
24 that the section of the trial judgement dedicated to the conclusion on
25 the appellants' responsibility, the Trial Chamber did not provide
1 cross-references to earlier findings or citations to the evidence on the
2 record. The Trial Chamber considers that this appears is regrettable as
3 it has greatly convoluted an increased the exercise of identifying
4 underlying findings and analysis for the parties and the Appeals Chamber
6 I'll deal now with the aspect of common purpose within the
7 framework of joint criminal enterprise.
8 Mr. Stanisic under his third ground of appeal in part, and
9 Mr. Zupljanin under his first ground of appeal in part, submit that the
10 Trial Chamber erred in law in defining the common criminal purpose of the
11 joint criminal enterprise; in particular, by conflating the legitimate
12 political goal for Serbs to live in one state with the criminal objective
13 of the joint criminal enterprise.
14 The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber clearly
15 determined that there existed a common purpose amounting to or involving
16 the commission of crimes provided for in the Statute of the Tribunal.
17 The appellants have thus failed to demonstrated that the Trial Chamber
18 erred in defining the common criminal purpose of the joint criminal
19 enterprise. And so Mr. Stanisic' third ground of appeal in part, and
20 Mr. Zupljanin's first ground of appeal in part, are therefore dismissed.
21 I'm going to deal briefly with the aspect of membership in the
22 joint criminal enterprise.
23 Mr. Stanisic in his second ground of appeal and Mr. Zupljanin in
24 his first ground of appeal in part, raise several challenges to the Trial
25 Chamber's findings in relation to the membership of the joint criminal
1 enterprise. In particular, Mr. Stanisic submits that the Trial Chamber
2 erroneously equated being part of the Bosnian Serb leadership with
3 membership of the JCE. The Appeals Chamber finds that there is
4 absolutely no basis for this argument and that the appellants have failed
5 to show that the Trial Chamber erred in its findings in relation to the
6 membership of the JCE. The Appeals Chamber thus dismisses Mr. Stanisic's
7 second ground of appeal in its entirety and Mr. Zupljanin's first ground
8 of appeal in part.
9 I now turn to Mr. Stanisic's ground of appeal relating to his
10 participation in the joint criminal enterprise.
11 Under his seventh ground of appeal, Mr. Stanisic submits that the
12 Trial Chamber erred in law and in fact by not according full probative
13 value to his voluntary interview with the Prosecution conducted between
14 the 16th and 21st of July 2007 and by failing to "grasp the trust of the
15 information provided."
16 The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Stanisic has failed to
17 demonstrate that the Trial Chamber ventured outside the scope of its
18 discretion in weighing and assessing the evidence in the light of the
19 entire trial record, and that therefore it erred in its assessment of the
21 Accordingly, Mr. Stanisic's seventh ground of appeal is being
23 Under his first and fifth ground of appeal in part, Mr. Stanisic
24 submits that the Trial Chamber erred in law by failing to set out and
25 apply the correct legal standard for contribution to a joint criminal
1 enterprise through failure to act and that consequently it erred by
2 finding that he contributed to the JCE.
3 The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber applied the
4 correct legal standard and dismisses Mr. Stanisic's first and fifth
5 grounds of appeal in part.
6 Under his first, fifth, and sixth grounds of appeal in part,
7 Mr. Stanisic submits that the Trial Chamber erred by failing to provide a
8 reasoned opinion when it failed to pronounce on whether the military or
9 civilian authorities were responsible for the investigation and
10 prosecution of crimes against non-Serbs committed by policemen
11 resubordinated to the military.
12 The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Stanisic has not demonstrated
13 that the pronouncement on whether military or civilian authorities were
14 responsible for the investigation and prosecution of crimes committed by
15 resubordinated policemen is a factual finding that was essential to the
16 determination of his guilt, the lack of which would result in a failure
17 to provide a reasoned opinion.
18 The Appeals Chamber therefore dismisses Mr. Stanisic's first,
19 fifth, and sixth grounds of appeal in part.
20 Under his first and sixth grounds of appeal in part, Mr. Stanisic
21 argues that the Trial Chamber made no findings as to whether and how he
22 contributed to the JCE and whether his purported contribution was
23 significant, thereby failing to provide a reasoned opinion. In his fifth
24 and sixth grounds of appeal in part, Mr. Stanisic further alleges
25 numerous factual errors in the Trial Chamber's assessment of his
1 contribution to the JCE.
2 With respect to the latter, the Appeals Chamber first finds that
3 the Trial Chamber erred by considering the appointments of
4 Stevan Todorovic, chief of Bosanski Samac public security station, and
5 Krsto Savic, chief of the Trebinje CSB, as Mr. Stanisic's direct
6 appointments of JCE members to the Republika Srpska MUP.
7 Second, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber erred by
8 concluding that Mr. Stanisic failed to take decisive action with respect
9 to the Luka detention camp. The Appeals Chamber dismisses the remainder
10 of his arguments alleging factual errors in the Trial Chamber's
11 assessment of his contribution of the JCE.
12 With regard to the alleged failure to provide a reasoned opinion,
13 the Appeals Chamber agrees with Mr. Stanisic. It finds that the Trial
14 Chamber's failure to enter express findings as to whether and how
15 Mr. Stanisic's acts and conduct furthered the JCE and whether his
16 contribution was significant constitutes a failure to provide a reasoned
17 opinion. Therefore, the Trial Chamber committed an error of law. This
18 error allows the Appeals Chamber to assess the Trial Chamber's findings
19 and relevant evidence concerning Mr. Stanisic's acts and conduct to
20 determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded beyond
21 reasonable doubt that he significantly contributed to the JCE.
22 For reasons set out in the judgement, the Appeals Chamber
23 concludes that the Trial Chamber's findings - with the exception of
24 overturned findings referenced above - as well as the evidence relied
25 upon supports a finding that a reasonable trier of fact could have
1 concluded beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanisic significantly
2 contributed to the JCE.
3 On the basis of this foregoing, the Appeals Chamber dismisses
4 Mr. Stanisic's first, fifth, and sixth grounds of appeal in part. I will
5 address the Appeals Chamber's findings on the impact of the factual
6 errors on Mr. Stanisic's sentence later in this summary.
7 Under his first and third grounds of appeal in part and fourth
8 ground of appeal, Mr. Stanisic submits that the Trial Chamber erred in
9 finding that he possessed the requisite intent for liability under the
10 first category of joint criminal enterprise and raises several legal and
11 factual challenges in this regard, including a challenge as to whether
12 the Trial Chamber provided a reasoned opinion.
13 With respect to the alleged error by failing to provide a
14 reasoned opinion, the Appeals Chamber regrettably notes again the Trial
15 Chamber's approach not to provide cross-references to earlier findings or
16 citations to the evidence on the record. Moreover, it notes that with
17 respect to a number of factors on which it relied to conclude that
18 Mr. Stanisic possessed the requisite intent, the Trial Chamber adopted
19 vague, generic, and nondescript terms to refer to factual findings in
20 other sections of the trial judgement.
21 This approach is problematic and as already stated it has
22 complicated the Appeals Chamber's review of the Trial Chamber's
23 reasoning. Nonetheless, the Appeals Chamber considers that through a
24 careful and thorough examination of the Trial Judgement, the
25 Trial Chamber's reasoning is discernible. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber
1 concludes that ultimately the Trial Chamber did not fail to provide a
2 reasoned opinion for concluding that he possessed the requisite intent
3 and therefore dismisses Mr. Stanisic's arguments in this regard.
4 The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber committed two
5 distinct factual errors in assessing Mr. Stanisic's knowledge of crimes.
6 Namely, first, the Trial Chamber erred by finding on the basis of the
7 communications log-book of the Republika Srpska MUP headquarters and the
8 Sarajevo CSB from 22nd April 1992 to 2nd January 1993 that Mr. Stanisic
9 was "regularly informed through 1992 about crimes."
10 Second, the Trial Chamber erred in finding that on
11 18th April 1992, he was informed that a certain Zoka had arrested Muslims
12 in Sokolac. In addition, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial
13 Chamber erred, in fact, in finding that Mr. Stanisic was a member of the
14 Bosnian Serb Assembly when assessing his intent. Mr. Stanisic's
15 remaining arguments with respect to his intent are dismissed.
16 On the basis of the remaining upheld findings of the Trial
17 Chamber, the Appeals Chamber finds that the aforementioned errors do not,
18 however, impact the Trial Chamber's conclusion on Mr. Stanisic's intent.
19 The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that Mr. Stanisic has failed to
20 demonstrate that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that he possessed the
21 requisite intent for the first category of joint criminal enterprise
22 liability throughout the indictment period, namely, from at least
23 1st April 1992 until 31st December 1992.
24 For these reasons, the Appeals Chamber dismisses Mr. Stanisic's
25 first and third ground of appeal in part and his fourth ground of appeal
1 in its entirety.
2 I now move to Mr. Stanisic's challenges concerning his conviction
3 pursuant to the third category of JCE, in particular, his first ground of
4 appeal in part and his eighth to eleventh grounds of appeal.
5 In his eighth ground of appeal, Mr. Stanisic submits that the
6 Trial Chamber erred in law by entering convictions for the specific
7 intent crime of persecutions as a crime against humanity pursuant to the
8 third category of joint criminal enterprise.
9 The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Stanisic has failed to show
10 that cogent reasons exist to depart from its well-established case law
11 allowing for such convictions. It dismissed Mr. Stanisic's eighth ground
12 of appeal.
13 In his first ground of appeal in part and his ninth ground of
14 appeal, Mr. Stanisic argues that the Trial Chamber failed to make the
15 required findings on the subjective element of the third category of JCE
16 in relation to the following crimes: First, murder, as a crimes against
17 humanity and as a violations of the laws or customs of war; second,
18 torture as a crime against humanity and as a violations of the laws or
19 customs of war; third, cruel treatment as violations of the laws or
20 customs of war; and lastly, inhumane acts as a crime against humanity.
21 The Appeals Chamber is of the view that the Trial Chamber made
22 the required findings. Therefore, Mr. Stanisic's first ground of appeal
23 in part and ninth ground of appeal in its entirety are being dismissed.
24 In his first ground of appeal in part and his tenth and eleventh
25 ground of appeal, Mr. Stanisic further alleges several errors with
1 respect to, first, whether his JCE III crimes were natural and
2 foreseeable consequences of the joint criminal enterprise; second,
3 whether his JCE III crimes were foreseeable to him, including whether the
4 Trial Chamber provided a reasoned opinion for its conclusion in this
5 regard; and, third, whether he willingly took the risk that they might be
7 The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Stanisic has failed to show an
8 error in the Trial Chamber's findings. As such, the Appeals Chamber
9 dismisses his first ground of appeal in part and his tenth and eleventh
10 grounds of appeal in their entirety.
11 I am now going to turn to Mr. Zupljanin's ground of appeal
12 relating to his participation in the joint criminal enterprise.
13 I will first address Mr. Zupljanin's first ground of appeal in
14 part, challenging the Trial Chamber's findings in relation to his
15 responsibility pursuant to the first category of joint criminal
17 Mr. Zupljanin alleges legal and factual errors in relation to the
18 Trial Chamber's reliance on his failures to act, in particular his
19 failure to launch criminal investigations, to discipline his
20 subordinates, and to protect the non-Serb population, in concluding that
21 he significantly contributed to the joint criminal enterprise and that he
22 possessed the intent to further this JCE.
23 The Appeals Chamber rejects Mr. Zupljanin's argument that the
24 Trial Chamber erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal standard
25 when it considered instances of his failure to act to determine whether
1 he contributed to the JCE and had the requisite intent. In addition, the
2 Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Zupljanin has not demonstrated that the
3 Trial Chamber erred by failing to make findings that he had sufficient
4 control or authority over the police as a result of declining to
5 pronounce on issues of resubordination of the police to the military.
6 The Appeals Chamber also dismisses Mr. Zupljanin's remaining arguments in
7 relation to the Trial Chamber's findings on the aforementioned failures
8 to act on his part.
9 Consequently, the Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Zupljanin has
10 failed to demonstrate that the Trial Chamber erred in relying on these
11 failures to act to infer his contribution to the JCE and his intent.
12 Furthermore, Mr. Zupljanin's raises challenges in relation to the
13 Trial Chamber's findings on his knowledge of and role in the unlawful
14 arrests and detention of non-Serbs in the ARK municipalities. The
15 Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Zupljanin has failed to demonstrate that
16 the Trial Chamber erred in concluding that the arrests and detentions of
17 non-Serbs in the ARK municipalities were unlawful and that the
18 Trial Chamber erred in relying on his knowledge of and role in the
19 unlawful arrests and detentions to establish his contribution to the
20 joint criminal enterprise and his intent.
21 Mr. Zupljanin also argues that the Trial Chamber erred in relying
22 on several of his other positive acts to conclude that he significantly
23 contributed to the joint criminal enterprise and/or that he had possessed
24 the requisite intent.
25 The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber erred in finding
1 that Mr. Zupljanin was present at the Serbian Democratic Party Main Board
2 meeting at the Holiday Inn in Sarajevo on 14 February 1992, I'll be
3 referring to this as the Holiday Inn meeting, and in relying on this
4 factor when assessing his intent to further the joint criminal
5 enterprise. Mr. Zupljanin's remaining arguments concerning his other
6 positive acts are dismissed.
7 I now turn to Mr. Zupljanin's challenges to the Trial Chamber's
8 overall approach in finding that he significantly contributed to the
9 joint criminal enterprise. The Appeals Chamber dismisses Mr. Zupljanin's
10 arguments in this respect. Moreover, recalling that he has not shown any
11 error in relation to the Trial Chamber's reliance on the factors relevant
12 to his significant contribution, the Appeals Chamber finds that he has
13 not shown that no reasonable trier of fact could have found that he
14 significantly contributed to the joint criminal enterprise.
15 Mr. Zupljanin further raises challenges to the Trial Chamber's
16 overall approach in finding that he shared the requisite intent under the
17 first category of joint criminal enterprise. The Appeals Chamber
18 dismisses Mr. Zupljanin's argument in this respect, and in particular
19 finds that he has failed to demonstrate that the Trial Chamber applied an
20 incorrect standard for the subjective element of the first category of
21 joint criminal enterprise.
22 Moreover, while the Appeals Chamber has found that the Trial
23 Chamber erred in relying on Mr. Zupljanin's purported attendance at the
24 Holiday Inn meeting, he has failed to show that the Trial Chamber's
25 conclusion that he possessed the requisite intent during the indictment
1 period would not stand on the basis of the remaining factors.
2 Consequently, the Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Zupljanin has
3 failed to demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could have found
4 that he possessed the requisite intent pursuant to the first category of
5 joint criminal enterprise. In the light of the foregoing, the Appeals
6 Chamber dismisses Mr. Zupljanin's first ground of appeal in part.
7 In his second ground of appeal, Mr. Zupljanin alleges various
8 errors of law and fact concerning his convictions pursuant to the third
9 category of joint criminal enterprise in general, including that the
10 Trial Chamber erred in failing to make specific findings that he
11 possessed the intent to participate in and further the common purpose of
12 the joint criminal enterprise by finding him liable pursuant to the third
13 category of JCE for crimes of "greater gravity," than the JCE I crimes.
14 He further raises arguments with respect to as whether his JCE
15 III crimes were natural and foreseeable consequences of the joint
16 criminal enterprise, and the Trial Chamber's findings that his JCE III
17 crimes were foreseeable to him and he willingly took the risk that they
18 might be committed.
19 For the reasons set out in its judgement, the Appeals Chamber is
20 not persuaded by Mr. Zupljanin's arguments and dismisses his second
21 ground of appeal in its entirety.
22 In his third ground of appeal, Mr. Zupljanin challenges his
23 conviction pursuant to the third category of joint criminal enterprise
24 for extermination as a crime against humanity.
25 The Appeals Chambers is not convinced by Mr. Zupljanin's
1 submission that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that the actus reus of
2 extermination was met in relation to certain incidents.
3 The Appeals Chamber further finds proprio motu that the Trial
4 Chamber erred in law by failing to make a clear finding on whether the
5 principal perpetrators of the incident in which 20 detainees died during
6 their transportation from Betonirka detention camp in Sanski Most in
7 Manjaca detention camp in Banja Luka municipality possessed the required
8 mens rea of extermination. This constitutes a failure to provide a
9 reasoned opinion.
10 However, following an assessment of the relevant evidence and
11 factual findings, the Appeals Chamber concludes that a reasonable trier
12 of fact could have found beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators
13 acted with the required mens rea. Therefore, the Trial Chamber's error
14 does not invalidate the Trial Judgement.
15 Mr. Zupljanin also argues that the Trial Chamber erred in finding
16 that extermination was foreseeable to him. The Appeals Chamber agrees
17 that the Trial Chamber erred in relying on certain evidence to find that
18 Mr. Zupljanin knew on the Sanski Most incident. However, it finds that
19 despite this error a reasonable trier of fact could have found that
20 Mr. Zupljanin was informed of the incident shortly after it occurred and
21 relied on this knowledge to find that extermination was foreseeable to
22 Mr. Zupljanin and that he willingly took and continued to take the risk
23 that extermination could be committed. The Appeals Chamber rejects all
24 remaining arguments advanced by Mr. Zupljanin in this ground of appeal
25 and therefore dismisses his third ground of appeal in its entirety.
1 Mr. Zupljanin's conviction for ordering persecutions through
2 plunder of property. This is what I'm going to deal with now.
3 Under his fifth ground of appeal, Mr. Zupljanin challenges the
4 Trial Chamber's findings that he ordered persecutions to plunder of
5 property through his order of 31st July 1992. For reasons set out in its
6 written judgement, the Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Zupljanin has
7 failed to demonstrate an error on the part of the Trial Chamber and
8 dismisses his fifth ground of appeal in its entirety.
9 I'll deal now briefly with the aspect of cumulative convictions.
10 In its second ground of appeal, the Prosecution submits that the
11 Trial Chamber erred in law by failing to enter convictions for the crimes
12 of murder, torture, deportation, and other inhumane acts considering of
13 forcible transfer as crimes against humanity in addition to the
14 convictions it entered for the crime of persecutions as a crimes against
15 humanity through the same underlying acts.
16 Recalling the well-established jurisprudence that convictions for
17 the crime of persecutions and other crimes against humanity based on the
18 same conduct are permissibly cumulative, the Appeals Chamber finds that
19 the Trial Chamber has committed an error of law when it failed to enter
20 convictions for the crimes of murder, torture, deportation, and other
21 inhumane acts as crimes against humanity. Accordingly, the Appeals
22 Chamber grants the Prosecution's second ground of appeal. However, for
23 reasons you will find set out in the judgement, the Appeals Chamber
24 declines to enter new convictions on appeal.
25 I now come to the crucial part of this summarised judgement. I'm
1 turning to sentencing.
2 The appellants and the Prosecution have each appealed the
3 sentences of 22 years of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Chamber.
4 Mr. Stanisic, in his twelfth through fifteenth ground of appeal,
5 and Mr. Zupljanin in his fourth ground of appeal, allege a number of
6 errors of law and fact in relation to their sentence, including with
7 respect to the Trial Chamber's consideration of the gravity of their
8 conduct, aggravating factors, and mitigating factors. They also allege
9 that the Trial Chamber erred by double-counting certain factors.
10 The Prosecution submits, in its first ground of appeal, that the
11 Trial Chamber erred by imposing manifestly inadequate sentences on the
13 The Appeals Chamber finds that it has not been shown that the
14 Trial Chamber committed a discernible error and therefore dismisses the
15 grounds of appeal raised by the appellants and the Prosecution in
16 relation to sentencing in their entirety.
17 I now come to disposition.
18 Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Zupljanin, will you please rise.
19 For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals Chamber:
20 Pursuant to Article 25 of the Statute and Rules 117 and 118 of
21 the Rules of Evidence and Procedure;
22 Noting the respective written submissions of the parties and the
23 arguments they presented at the appeal hearing on 16th December 2015;
24 Sitting in open session;
25 Dismisses Mico Stanisic's appeal in its entirety;
1 Dismisses Stojan Zupljanin's appeal in its entirety;
2 Affirms Mico Stanisic configuration under Counts 1, 4, and 6;
3 And Stojan Zupljanin's convictions under counts 1, 2, 4, and 6;
4 Grants the Prosecution's second ground of appeal and finds that
5 the Trial Chamber erred by finding that convictions for the crime of
6 persecutions as a crime against humanity under Article 5 of the Statute
7 are impermissibly cumulative with convictions for other crimes against
8 humanity based on the same conduct and also erred by failing to enter
9 convictions for Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin pursuant to
10 Article 7(1) of the Statute under counts 3, 5, 9 and 10, but declines to
11 enters new convictions against Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin on
12 appeal under these counts;
13 Dismisses the Prosecution's appeal in all other respects;
14 Affirms the sentences of 22 years of imprisonment imposed by the
15 Trial Chamber against Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin, respectively,
16 subject to credit being given under Rule 101(C) of the Rules for the
17 periods that they already spent in detention;
18 Rules that this judgement shall be enforced immediately pursuant
19 to Rule 118 of the Rules of Evidence and Procedure of this Tribunal; and
20 Orders, in accordance with the Rule 103(C) and Rule 107 of the
21 Rules, that Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin are to remain in the
22 custody of the Tribunal pending the finalisation of arrangements for
23 their transfer to the state where their sentence will be served.
24 Judge Daqun Liu appends a declaration.
25 Judge Koffi Kumelio Afande appends a separate opinion.
1 Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Zupljanin, you may be seated.
2 That brings me to the end. Before adjourning, I would like to
3 express my sincere thanks to everyone in this courtroom present today and
4 in the past during the hearing that we have had, and also I would like to
5 thank those outside this courtroom who constitute quite a group for all
6 the assistance that they have provided during these proceedings and in
7 this case. I'd like to thank the interpreters, I'd like to thank the
8 recorder, the Registrar, the entire staff.
9 Most of all, I would like to thank you two groups of persons, in
10 particular. One is the team that assisted us, the Judges, in preparing
11 this judgement. They have all worked hard, rounds the clock, many a time
12 seven days a week, and I would like to commend them publicly. And I
13 would also like to thank my esteemed colleagues sitting with me today for
14 their complete co-operation in a case which was conducted at quite a
15 speed when everyone is really busy with several other matters in this
16 Tribunal. I thank you for your co-operation, because without it we would
17 not be here today.
18 So I'll now conclude this hearing. The Appeals Chamber stands
20 But before we leave the courtroom, may I remind you,
21 Madam Registrar, we spoke on this outside before we entered the
22 courtroom, you're now please asked to distribute a copy of the judgement
23 to the parties. Thank you.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.23 p.m.