1. Second Amended Indictment against Goran Jelisic and Ranko Cesic, 19 October 1998, paras. 14 ff. Ranko Cesic has not been arrested to date.
2. In this instance, the Second Amended Indictment. See the Procedural Background below.
3. Counts 4 to 23, 32, 33, 38 and 39 (for counts 14 and 15, see footnote 7 below). All the victims 1isted under these counts were also specified under genocide.
4. Counts 30, 31, 36, 37, 40 and 41.
5. Count 44.
6. This assignment was conducted in accordance with the Rules which provide that the accused may request the assignment of a co-counsel in the sixty (60) days preceding the date that the trial opens.
7. The wording of counts 14 and 15 is slightly ambiguous. Whilst the heading of paragraph 21 of the indictment specifies the murder of two persons, Sead Cerimagic and Jasminko Cumurovic, the text only refers to the incident in which "Goran Jelisic shot and killed Jasminko Cumurovic". But the Agreed Factual Basis drafted by the Prosecution and the Defence related solely to J. Cumurovic and in the statements attached to this agreement ("Factual basis for the charges to which Goran Jelisic intends to plead guilty" (hereinafter "the factual basis"), Annex II, (confidential) statement of 29 June 1998, pp. 20-21), Goran Jelisic did not admit having killed Sead Cerimagic. In these circumstances, the Trial Chamber deems that the indictment and the guilty plea do concern only the murder of Jasminko Cumurovic.
8. Rule 98 bis obliges the Trial Chamber to pronounce the acquittal of the accused when the evidence presented by the Prosecution is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
9. The facts detailed herein are based on the witness statements and descriptions contained in the factual basis to which the Defence expressed its agreement [French Provisional Transcript (hereinafter "FPT") p. 183].
10. Factual basis: Witness F, p. 3; Witness O, p. 2; Witness W, p. 2.
11. Witness F, factual basis, p. 2.
12. Witness W, factual basis, p. 2.
13. Witness O, factual basis, p. 2.
14. Witness P, factual basis, p. 2.
15. The elements presented in the factual basis show that some witnesses stated that these soldiers were from Serbia. The witnesses heard during the trial often stated that the members of the Serbian forces involved in the conflict were from Bijeljina.
16. Witness BB, factual basis, p. 2.
17. Factual basis: Witness C, p. 2; Witness P, p. 3; Witness V, p. 2; Witness M, p. 2; Witness J, p. 2; Witness I, p. 3.
18. The main collection centres given were: the Brcko Mosque, the JNA barracks, the Laser Bus Co. and the Brcko police station (SUP).
19. Factual basis, Witness W, p. 2; Witness Q, p. 3.
20. Factual basis, Witness E, p. 3; Witness N, p. 4.
21. Factual basis, Witness V, pp. 7-8; Witness B, p. 6; Witness P, p. 6.
22. Factual basis, Witness C, p. 9; Witness J, p. 13; Witness K, p. 13; Witness N, p. 10.
23. As regards the legal validity of the guilty plea, see Section III below.
24. Twelve of them charge him with murder (counts 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 32, 38), three with cruel treatment (counts 30, 36, 40) and one with plunder (count 44).
25. Twelve of them charge him under crimes against humanity with murder (counts 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 33, 39) and three with inhumane acts (counts 31, 37, 41).
26. Psychiatric evaluation reports of Dr. Nikola Kmetic dated 1 April 1998 and of Dr. Elsman dated 15 April 1998; psychological evaluation report of Dr. Herfst dated 16 April 1998; and the forensic report presented by the psychiatric experts N. Duits and C.M. van der Veen dated 25 November 1998.
27. The Tribunal has noted on several occasions that the armed conflict mentioned in Article 5 of the Statute was a condition for the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and not a legal ingredient of a crime against humanity, Judgements of the Appeals Chamber in the case The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic alias Dule (hereinafter "the Tadic case"), IT-94-1-AR72, 2 October 1995 (hereinafter "the Tadic Appeal Decision"), paragraphs (hereinafter "paras.") 140 and 249; and IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999 (hereinafter "the Tadic Appeal Judgement"), para. 251.
28. Tadic Appeal Decision, para. 70.
29. See inter alia the "Addendum to the agreed factual basis for guilty pleas to be entered by Goran Jelisic", confidential, 28 October 1998 (hereinafter "the Addendum"), p. 2.
30. Factual basis, pp. 18-19.
31. Tadic Appeal Decision, para. 91.
32. International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and other such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, between 1 January and 31 December 1994, (hereinafter "the ICTR" or "the Tribunal for Rwanda").
33. See inter alia the Judgement in the case The Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic alias "Pavo", Hazim Delic, Esad Landzo alias "Zenga", IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998 (hereinafter "the Celebici Judgement"), para. 301 or the Judgement in the case The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998, (hereinafter "the Akayesu Judgement"), para. 608.
34. Tadic Appeals Decision, para. 87; the Celebici Judgement also considered that Article 3 of the Statute covered violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions (para. 298).
35. See the Akayesu Judgement, para. 589.
36. Counts 4 and 5 (murder of an unidentified male), 6 and 7 (murder of Hasan Jasarevic), 8 and 9 ( murder of a young man from Sinteraj), 10 and 11 (murder of Ahmet Hodzic or Hadzic alias Papa), 12 and 13 (murder of Suad).
37. Statement of the accused dated 29 June 1998, Annex II, pp. 5-6, pp. 15-16, p. 29.
38. Counts 18 and 19.
39. Witness P, factual basis, p. 6.
40. Witness N, factual basis, pp. 5-6.
41. Witness O, factual basis, p. 6. This witness reports having seen the body of Naza Bukvic the day after she died amongst other bodies (p. 10).
42. Celebici Judgement, para. 552.
43. A term which seems to have no direct equivalent in English but which is considered highly offensive.
44. Factual basis, Witness T p. 2-4; Witness U, p. 2-4.
45. Factual basis, p. 15.
46. Factual basis, p. 16.
47. Celebici Judgement, para. 590.
48. Factual basis, pp. 17-18.
49. Factual basis, Witness AA, p. 18.
50. The Trial Chamber notes however that the French version of the indictment specifies crimes under Article 5(a) as "meurtre" of the Statute (emphasis added) whilst the Statute uses the term "assassinat".
51. Akayesu Judgement, para. 588.
52. "Meurtre" is also used in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 7(1)(a)) and in Article 18 of the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, Official Document (hereinafter "Off. Doc.") of the United Nations Assembly General (hereinafter "UN"), 51st session, A/51/10 (1996) Suppl. No. 10 (hereinafter "Draft Articles of the ILC").
53. See section III A) 1, above.
54. Celebici Judgement, para. 552.
55. See, in particular, the report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Security Council resolution 808 (S/25704, 3 May 1993, para. 48). Article 3 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and Article 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court also state this element explicitly. The widespread or systematic attack was also specified as a legal ingredient of a crime against humanity by the Appeals Chamber of the Tribunal in the Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 648. The Legal Committee of the United Nations War Crimes Commission also adopted this position (History of the U.N. War Crimes Commission, p. 179).
56. In particular, in the cases The Prosecutor v. Miroslav Radic and Veselin Sljivancanin (Case No. IT-95-13-R61 of 3 April 1996, para. 30) and The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic alias "Dule" (Case No. IT-94-1-T of 7 May 1997, hereinafter "the Tadic Judgement", paras. 646-647).
57. In particular, in the Akayesu Judgement (para. 579) and in The Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, 21 May 1999, para. 123 (hereinafter "the Kayishema case").
58. Article 7, paragraph 1.
59. Draft Articles of the ILC, pp. 94-95.
60. Expressed, in particular, in the writings and speeches of political leaders and media propaganda.
61. In the Tadic Judgement, the Trial Chamber noted that "SiCt is the desire to exclude isolated or random acts from the notion of crimes against humanity that led to the inclusion of the requirement that the acts must be directed against a civilian 'population'" (para. 648).
62. Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution 780 (1992), UN Off. Doc., S/1994/674, para. 78.
63. Tadic Judgement, para. 639. The Tribunal for Rwanda took the same position in the Akayesu case (Judgement, para. 582) and Kayishema case (Judgement, para. 128).
64. This case-law is based upon Article 50(3) of the first Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 Relating to the Protection of Victims in International Armed Conflicts.
65. See section II above.
66. See the "Addendum", p. 3.
67. Articles II and III.
68. The draft Convention was approved by a General Assembly plenary session with 55 votes for, none against and no abstentions. The Convention was immediately signed by 20 States.
69. That is, pursuant to Article XIII of the Convention, 90 days after the filing of the twentieth ratification instrument. Yugoslavia was amongst the first States to ratify the Convention on 29 August 1950.
70. The concept of crimes against humanity first appeared in the Charters and Statutes of the International Military Tribunals established by the London Agreement of 1945 and by the Declaration of the Allied Supreme Commander in the Far-East of 1946. Genocide, a term created by Raphaël Lemkin in 1944 (Axis Rules in Occupied Europe, Washington D.C., Carnegie Endowment, 1944), was first officially consecrated in the indictment brought against the major German war criminals of 8 April 1945.
71. The Convention was ratified by 129 States on 1 October 1999.
72. Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a peremptory norm of general international law as "a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character".
73. ICJ, Case of the Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Rec. 1951, p. 23. The Court reaffirmed its position in the case involving the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co.(ICJ, Reports 1970, p. 32) by indicating that given the importance of the rights at issue, certain areas exist such as the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide for which States have obligations towards the entire international community (erga omnes obligations) and not only to another State: the erga omnes obligations in contemporary international law derive, for instance, from the prohibition of acts of aggression and genocide.
74. A principle recalled by the Secretary-General in his report pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 808 (1993) of 3 May 1993 (UN Off. Doc. S/25704, para. 34): "application of the principle nullum crimen sine lege requires that the international tribunal should apply rules of international humanitarian law which are beyond any doubt part of customary law so that the problem of adherence of some but not all States to specific conventions does not arise".
75. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, in force as of 27 January 1980.
76. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention: "1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose".
77. Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: "Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
a. leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
b. leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable".
78. The Tribunal for Rwanda has jurisdiction to judge those persons presumed responsible for the crime of genocide pursuant to Article 2 of its Statute which also reproduces Articles II and III of the Convention on genocide.
79. The Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was brought before the International Court of Justice in 1993 by Bosnia-Herzegovina against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) pursuant to Article IX of the Convention. In this case, the Court rendered two orders (Request for the indication of provisional measures dated 8 April 1993, Reports 1993 p. 1; Further requests for the indication of provisional measures dated 13 September 1993, Reports 1993, p. 325) and a decision on its jurisdiction (Decision dated 11 July 1996, preliminary objections, Reports 1996, p. 595). However, it has not yet ruled on the merits of the case.
80. Of the judgements rendered in this field by national courts, the following may inter alia be noted: the Judgement rendered on 29 May 1962 by the Supreme Court of Israel against Adolf Eichmann for complicity in a "crime against the Jewish people", a crime defined the same as genocide but whose victims are exclusively Jewish; the Judgement rendered by the courts in Equatorial Guinea against the tyrant Macias and the Judgement rendered in absentia against Pol Pot and his deputy Prime Minister by a revolutionary people’s tribunal set up by the Vietnamese authorities following their invasion of Cambodia. Proceedings were also initiated in Ethiopia against 70 representatives of the Mengistu Haile Mariam regime which held power from 1974 to 1991. Two Judgements relating to Serbian nationals accused of genocide or complicity in genocide were also recently rendered by the German courts (Appeals Court of Bavaria, Novislav Djajic case, 23 May 1997, 3 St 20/96; Düsseldorf Supreme Court, Nikola Jorgic case, 26 September 1997, 2 StE 8/96).
81. Particular attention should be paid to the two reports submitted by the United Nations Subcommittee for anti-discriminatory measures and the protection of minorities by Nicodème Ruhashyankiko in 1978 ("Study of the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide" E/CN.4/Sub.2/416, 4 July 1978) and by Benjamin Whitaker in 1985 ("Revised and updated report on the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide", E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6, 2 July 1985).
82. Draft Articles of the ILC, in particular pp. 85-93.
83. In the instance, the group was defined by the Prosecution in the charge as being Muslim. For the legal discussion on the notion of group see B) 1) b).
84. In the Akayesu case, the Trial Chamber remarked that the term "meurtre" used in the French text was more exact and favourable term for the accused than "killing" used in the English text of the Statute. It selected one of the two definitions of murder in accordance with the general principles of criminal law by which the interpretation which most benefits the accused must be chosen (Judgement, para. 501).
85. Prosecutor’s pre-trial brief of 19 November 1998, para. 1.7.
86. Moreover, Goran Jelisic expressly admitted that he was guilty of three other murders not included in the indictment, FPT p. 81.
87. ILC Draft Articles, p. 88.
88. ILC Draft Articles, p. 88; the same comment was made by Pieter N. Drost, based on the preparatory works of the Convention, in The Crime of State, Genocide, A.W. Sythoff, Leyden, 1959, p. 124: "It is an externally perceptible quality or characteristic which the victim has in common with the other members of the group, which makes him distinct from the rest of society in the criminal mind of his attacker and which for that very reason causes the attacker to commit the crime against such marked and indicated individual"(emphasis added).
89. Tadic Appeals Judgement, para. 305.
90. Tadic Judgement, para. 697: "what is necessary is some form of discrimination that is intended to be and results in an infringement of an individual’s fundamental rights. Additionally, this discrimination must be on specific grounds, namely race, religion or politics".
91. See in particular the Tadic Judgement, para, 717.
92. The Israeli District Court noted that "All Sthe accusedC did with the object of exterminating the Jewish people also amounts ipso facto to persecution of Jews on national, racial, religious and political grounds" (Attorney General of Israel v. Eichmann, Judgement of the District Court, in E. Lauterpacht, International Law Reports, vol. 36, part VI, para. 201, p. 239 (1968)).
93. Judgement, para. 578.
94. Not retained at the draft stage when submitted to the United Nations General Assembly (E/447) because of their lack of permanence, political groups were included under protected groups in the ad hoc committee’s draft document by a narrow majority (4 votes to 3; UN Off. Doc. E/794 of 24 May 1948 pp. 13-14). The reference to political groups was however again rejected in the final draft of the Assembly General’s Sixth Committee (see in particular the commentaries of the Brazilian and Venezuelan representatives expressing their concern about the fact that only "permanent" groups were specified, A/C.6/SR 69, p. 5).
95. Here, the Trial Chamber follows in part the position taken by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda which stated that "an ethnic group is one whose members share a common language and culture; or a group which distinguishes itself, as such (self-identification); or, a group identified as such by others, including the perpetrators of the crimes (identification by others)" in the Kayishema case (Judgement, para. 98).
96. Review in the case The Prosecutor v. Nikolic (hereinafter "the Nikolic Review"), 20 October 1995, para. 27, as part of the appraisal of the crime against humanity "persecution": "the civilian population subjected to such discrimination was identified by the perpetrators of the discriminatory measures, principally by its religious characteristics" (emphasis added).
97. Final Report of the Commission of Experts, op. cit., para. 96, p. 25: "If there are several or more than one victim groups, and each group as such is protected, it may be within the spirit and purpose of the Convention to consider all the victim groups as a larger entity. The case being, for example, that there is evidence that group A wants to destroy in whole or in part groups B, C and D, or rather everyone who does not belong to the national, ethnic, racial or religious group A. In a sense, group A has defined a pluralistic non-A group using national, ethnic, racial and religious criteria for the definition. It seems relevant to analyse the fate of the non-A group along similar lines as if the non-A group had been homogenous".
98. In this regard, the Trial Chamber notes that several witnesses (Q, B, N, E) whose statements are included in the factual basis also testified before the Trial Chamber during the genocide trial.
99. Witness B, FPT p. 159; Witness I, FPT p. 686; Witness N, FPT pp. 1115-1116.
100. Witness D, FPT pp. 525-526.
101. See exhibit 12. The witness Mustafa Ramic, former mayor of Brcko, alleged that about 2000 of the 3000 Muslims who supposedly remained in Brcko after the destruction of the bridges were killed or disappeared (FPT pp.1318-1327).
102. According to the prior statement of witness John Ralston, in 1991 the town of Brcko had a population of 41 046 of which 55.5% were Muslims, 19.9% Serbs, 6.9% Croats and 17.5% others. Muslims also accounted for the majority of the population throughout most of the Brcko municipality.
103. Witness A, FPT p. 45; Witness F, FPT p. 248.
104. Witness F, FPT p. 248.
105. Witness Q, FPT pp. 1203-1227.
106. ILC Draft Articles, p. 88.
107. Akayesu Judgement, para. 522.
108. Stefan Glaser, Droit international pénal conventionnel, Bruylant, Brussels, 1970, p. 107. Professor Pella also uses this criterion to distinguish the two crimes in his "Memorandum concerning a draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind" submitted to the ILC during its second session (UN Off. Doc., A/CN.4/39, 4 November 1950, para. 141, pp. 188-189).
109. ILC Draft Articles, p. 89.
110. Prosecutor’s pre-trial brief, para. 4.3, pp. 12-13.
111. The ILC Draft Articles just as Nehemia Robinson’s commentary indicate that the perpetrators of genocide must be seeking to destroy a "substantial part" of the group (ILC Draft Articles, p. 89; Nehemia Robinson, The Genocide Convention, New York, 1949 (1st edition), 1960, p. 63); the U. S. Senate’s "understanding" of Article II of the Convention also states that the U.S. interprets "partial destruction" as the destruction of a "substantial part" of the group (Genocide Convention, Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 18 July 1981, p. 22).
112. Kayishema Judgement, para. 97.
113. Raphaël Lemkin in Executive Session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Historical Series, 1976, p. 370. In the same vein, the implementing legislation proposed by the Nixon and Carter administrations stated that "'substantial part' means a part of a group of such numerical significance that the destruction or loss of that part would cause the destruction of the group as a viable entity", S EXEC. REP. No. 23, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1976), pp. 34-35.
114. Report of the Commission of Experts, para. 94 (emphasis added).
115. For the discussion of this point, see below.
116. Prosecutor’s pre-trial brief, para. 4.4, pp. 13-14.
117. Nehemia Robinson states that "the intent to destroy a multitude of persons of the same group must be classified as Genocide even if these persons constitute only a part of a group either within a country or within a region or within a single community", (emphasis added) p. 63.
118. UN Off. Doc. AG/Res. 37/ 123 D (16 December 1982), para. 2.
119. Nikolic Review, para. 34.
120. Prosecutor’s pre-trial brief, 19 November 1998, para. 3.1, pp. 7-8.
121. Prosecutor’s pre-trial brief, 19 November 1998, para. 3.2, p. 8.
122. Akayesu Judgement, para. 485.
123. Akayesu Judgement, paras. 544-547.
124. Witness J, FPT p. 830.
125. Witness I, FPT pp. 687-758.
126. Witness L, FPT p. 965; Witness D, FPT p.445. Allegedly, these bodies were then loaded into a refrigerated lorry (Witness A, FPT p. 5; Witness J, FPT p. 773), while others were thrown into the Sava River (Witness B, FPT pp. 136-139).
127. Testimony of Mr. Wright, FPT p. 1356, exhibit 60.
128. Testimony of Mr. Albert Charles Hunt, FPT pp. 1363 and 1369.
129. These lists name just over a hundred people who died. The first list (exhibit 12) was compiled using documents supplied by Republika Srpska which established a list of persons whose bodies were reportedly found in a mass grave. The second list (exhibit 13) was compiled by witness Mustafa Ramic. It appears from these exhibits that about sixty persons were killed in Brcko during May 1992 (of a total Muslim population of about 22 000 people – see note 101).
130. Exhibits 12 and 13.
131. Exhibit 13.
132. Witness L, FPT pp. 945-948.
133. Witness K, FPT pp. 840-903 and 980 to 1026.
134. Witness R, FPT pp. 1384-1476. The existence of lists was also remarked upon by Witness J, FPT p. 830.
135. Exhibit 13.
136. As indicated above, the figures provided by a prosecution witness put the Muslim population at over 22 000 in the town of Brcko alone.
137. Witness L, FPT p. 944; Witness H, FPT p. 669; Witness I, FPT p. 730; Witness G, FPT p. 423; Witness J, FPT p. 808.
138. Witness M, FPT p. 1076; Witness O, FPT p. 1155; Witness B, FPT pp. 158-159.
139. Witness D, FPT pp. 440-441. According to Witness O, Goran Jelisic wore the uniform of the civilian police or a camouflage uniform, FPT p. 1153.
140. Witness L, FPT pp. 907-970.
141. Witness B, FPT p. 139.
142. Witness A, FPT p. 95; Witness B, FPT p. 139.
143. Djurkovic or Jerkovic, Witness A, FPT p. 55; Witness B declared that "Kole" was the chief at Luka on 12 or 13 May 1992 and that he had been replaced by Vojkan and then Kosta, FPT p. 181.
144. Witness M, FPT p. 1076; Witness O, FPT p. 1155; Witness B, FPT pp. 158-159.
145. Witness K, FPT p. 885; Witness A, FPT p. 55.
146. Witness I, FPT p. 761; Witness R, FPT p. 1413.
147. Witness I.
148. Pieter N. Drost, The Crime of State, Genocide, A.W. Sythoff, Leyden, 1959, p. 85: "both as a question of theory and as a matter of principle nothing in the present Convention prohibits its provisions to be interpreted and applied to individual cases of murder by reason of the national, racial, ethnical or religious qualities of the single victim if the murderous attack was done with the intent to commit similar acts in the future and in connection with the first crime".
149. The French word "délibéré" was dropped further to a proposal of Belgium (UN Off. Doc. A/C.6/217, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.72 p. 8).
150. On this point, see inter alia the commentary of J. Graven, op. cit., p. 495.
151. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda noted similarly in the Kayishema case that "although a specific plan to destroy does not constitute an element of genocide, it would appear that it is not easy to carry out a genocide without such a plan, or organisation" (para. 94).
152. Witness J, FPT pp. 774 and 808; Witness A, FPT p. 125.
153. FPT p. 1
154. Witness F, FPT pp. 234-567.
155. Witness G, FPT pp. 372-434.
156. Witness K, FPT pp. 864-865.
157. Witness K, FPT pp. 867-868.
158. Witness F, FPT p. 249.
159. Witness A, FPT p. 45.
160. Witness R, FPT pp. 1401-1405.
161. Witness B, FPT pp. 131-133.
162. Witness K, FPT pp. 840-903 and 980-1026.
163. See note 25. See also the report of Doctor van den Bussche, 8 November 1999.
164. The Trial Chamber notes that the presence of a woman at Goran Jelisic’s side also seems to have encouraged him to commit certain murders in order to impress the young woman.
165. Witness R, FPT pp. 1383-1476.
166. Witness E, exhibit 24.

Rule 100
Sentencing Procedure on a Guilty Ple

(A) If the Trial Chamber convicts the accused on a guilty plea, the Prosecutor and the defence may submit any relevant information that may assist the Trial Chamber in determining an appropriate sentence.
(B) The sentence shall be pronounced in a judgement in public and in the presence of the convicted person, subject to Sub-rule 102(B).

Rule 101

(A) A convicted person may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term up to and including the remainder of the convicted person’s life.
(B) In determining the sentence, the Trial Chamber shall take into account the factors mentioned in Article 24, paragraph 2, of the Statute. As well as such factors as:

(i) any aggravating circumstances
(ii) any mitigating circumstances including the substantial cooperation with the Prosecutor by the convicted person before or after conviction;
(iii)  the general practice regarding prison sentences in the courts of the former Yugoslavia;
(iv) the extent to which any penalty imposed by a court of any State on the convicted person for the same act has already been served, as referred to in Article 10, paragraph 3, of the Statute.

(C) The Trial Chamber shall indicate whether multiple sentences shall be served consecutively or concurrently.
(D) Credit shall be given to the convicted person for the period, if any, during which the convicted person was detained in custody pending surrender to the Tribunal or pending trial or appeal.

167. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-Tbis-R117, Sentencing Judgement, 11 November 1999 (hereinafter "the Tadic Sentencing Judgement of 11 November 1999"), para. 12.
168. This interpretation is in line with the case-law of the two ad hoc Tribunals: the Tadic Sentencing Judgement of 11 November 1999, para 12; the Celebici Judgement, para 1194; The Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Judgement, 25 June 1999, para. 242; The Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96-22-T, Sentencing Judgement, 29 November 1996, (hereinafter "the Erdemovic Sentencing Judgement of 29 November 1996"), para. 39; and mutatis mutandis, for the ICTR: The Prosecutor v. Omar Serushago, Case No. ICTR-98-39-S, Sentence, 5 February 1999, (hereinafter "the Serushago Sentence"), para. 18; The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Sentencing Judgement, 2 October 1998, (hereinafter "the Akayesu Sentence"), para. 14; and The Prosecutor v. Jean Kambanda, Case No. ICTR-97-23-S, Judgement and Sentence, 4 September 1998 (hereinafter "the Kambanda Sentence"), para. 23.
169. The Tadic Sentencing Judgement of 11 November 1999, para. 7.
170. Tadic Sentencing Judgement of 11 November 1999, para. 9; Celebici Judgement, paras. 1231 and 1234; The Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 December 1998 (hereinafter "the Furundzija Judgement"), para. 288; The Prosecutor v. Clement Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement, 21 May 1999, para. 2; Serushago Sentence, para. 20; Akayesu Sentence, para. 19; Kambanda Sentence, para. 28.
171. Erdemovic Sentencing Judgement of 29 November 1996, para. 65.
172. Furundzija Judgement, para. 289.
173. FPT p. 2310.
174. FPT pp. 2349-2350.
175. FPT p. 2354.
176. Forensic Report, Duits & Van der Veen, 25 November 1998, pp. 5-9.
177. Initial appearance of 26 January 1998, FPT p. 1.
178. Furundzija Judgement, para. 284.
179. Report of Doctor van den Bussche, 8 November 1999, p. 22.
180. The Trial Chamber observes that the accused pleaded guilty to crimes against humanity contrary the advice of his counsel, FPT p. 187.
181. Witness DQ, FPT p. 2108.
182. The Trial Chamber notes, for example, the testimony of witness DR who met the accused for the first time in 1995.
183. Kambanda Sentence.
184. Serushago Sentence.
185. The Trial Chamber points out that all the Agreements entered into with States willing to receive convicted persons provide that when the Registrar presents her request, she will attach any appropriate recommendation relating to continued treatment in the State where the convicted person serves his sentence. See Article 2(2)(c) of the Agreements entered into with the different States: Agreement between the Government of Norway and the United Nations on the enforcement of sentences of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (24 April 1998), Agreement between the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the Government of Finland on the enforcement of sentences of the International Tribunal (7 May 1997), Agreement between the Government of the Italian Republic and the United Nations on the enforcement of sentences of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (6 February 1997), Agreement between the United Nations and the federal Government of Austria on the enforcement of sentences of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (23 July 1999), Agreement between the United Nations and the government of Sweden on the enforcement of sentences of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (23 February 1999).