The Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic & Dragan Jokic - Case No. IT-02-60-T

“Decision on Request for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Judgement on Motions for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis”

23 April 2004
Trial Chamber I, section A (Judges Liu [Presiding], Vassylenko and Argibay)

Procedural Background

· On 5 April 2004, the Trial Chamber rendered its “Judgement on Motions for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis” (“Judgement”) whereby it granted in part the motions filed by Vidoje Blagojevic.¹

· On 15 April 2004, the Prosecution filed the “Prosecution’s Request for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal of the Trial Chamber’s Judgement on Motions for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98 bis” (“Request”) whereby it requested that the Trial Chamber grant certification to appeal the Judgement on the basis that the issues raised in the Request satisfied the requirements of Rule 73(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”).²

Decision

The Trial Chamber found that the Prosecution erred in bringing the Request under Rule 73 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”) and accordingly dismissed the Request.

Reasoning

The Trial Chamber found that “Rule 73(B) of the Rules applies to decisions rendered by the Trial Chamber pursuant to Rule 73 of the Rules”.³

It noted that motions for acquittal under Rule 98 bis fall within Section Four of Part Six of the Rules and that this section is entitled “Judgement”. It held that a judgement for acquittal is “not a decision rendered pursuant to Rule 72 or Rule 73 of the Rules”.⁴

The Trial Chamber therefore found that “Rule 108⁵ – and not Rule 73 – is the proper Rule under which to bring an appeal from a judgement including a judgement rendered pursuant to Rule 98 bis”.⁶

________________________________________
1. The Trial Chamber accordingly entered a judgement of acquittal: for Vidoje Blagojevic on Counts 2 to 4 of the Indictment insofar as his individual criminal responsibility is alleged, under Article 7(1) of the Statute, for planning, instigating, ordering and committing the crimes; for Vidoje Blagojevic on Counts 5 and 6 of the Indictment insofar as his individual criminal responsibility is alleged, under Article 7(1) of the Statute, for planning, instigating and ordering the crimes; and for Dragan Jokic on Counts 2 to 5 of the Indictment insofar as his individual criminal responsibility is alleged, under Article 7(1) of the Statute, for planning, instigating and ordering the crimes. The Trial Chamber further rejected certain factual allegations contained in the Indictment.
2. Rule 73(B) reads: “(B) Decisions on all motions are without interlocutory appeal save with certification by the Trial Chamber, which may grant such certification if the decision involves an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial, and for which, in the opinion of the Trial Chamber, an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings.”
3. Para. 9 (emphasis in the original).
4. Para. 10 (emphasis in the original). For previous examples of judgements for acquittal, see Kordic and Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-T, Decision on Defence Motions for Judgement of Acquittal, 6 April 2000, Judicial Supplement No. 14; Kunarac et al., IT-96-23-T and IT-96-23/1-T, Decision on Defence Motions for Judgment of Acquittal, 3 July 2000, Judicial Supplement No. 18; Kvocka et al., IT-98-30/1-T, Decision on Defence Motions for Acquittal, 15 December 2000, Judicial Supplement No. 21; Stakic, IT-97-24-T, Decision on Rule 98 bis Motion for Judgement of Acquittal, 31 October 2002.
5. Rule 108 (“Notice of Appeal”) reads : “A party seeking to appeal a judgement shall, not more than thirty days from the date on which the judgement was pronounced, file a notice of appeal, setting forth the grounds. The Appellant should also identify the order, decision or ruling challenged with specific reference to the date of its filing, and/or the transcript page, and indicate the substance of the alleged errors and the relief sought. The Appeals Chamber may, on good cause being shown by motion, authorise a variation of the grounds of appeal.”
6. Para. 13. The Trial Chamber observed that the decision to grant certification under Rule 73(B) is a discretionary one (“may”). It considered that in order to ensure that the right of all accused to be equal before the Tribunal (Article 21(1) of the Statute) is respected, a discretionary avenue of appeal would not be appropriate in cases where the issue determined by the Trial Chamber is whether to enter a judgement of acquittal on one or more offences in the indictment (footnote 10).