1. Kvocka Appeal Brief, filed 11 April 2002; Prcac Appeal Brief filed 12 April 2002; Radic Appeal Brief, filed 11 April 2002; Zigic Appeal Brief, filed 3 July 2002.
2. Kos’s Brief on Appeal From Trial Judgement dated 2 November 2001, filed 2 April 2002; Kos’s Brief on Appeal Withdrawal, filed 14 May 2002.
3. Trial Judgement, paras 2 and 15-21.
4. Ibid., paras 319 and 320.
5. Ibid., para. 332.
6. Ibid., para. 372.
7. Ibid., para. 414.
8. Ibid., paras 419 and 752.
9. Ibid., para. 753. The following counts were dismissed: Count 2, Inhumane Acts as a Crime against Humanity; Count 3, Outrages on Personal Dignity as a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War; Count 4, Murder as a Crime against Humanity; Count 8, Torture as a Crime against Humanity ; Count 10, Cruel Treatment as a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War.
10. Trial Judgement, para. 412.
11. Ibid., para. 754.
12. Decision on the Request for Provisional Release of Miroslav Kvocka, 17 December 2003. See also the Order Varying the Provisional Release of Miroslav Kvocka and for his Return to the Tribunal During the Appeal Hearing, 11 March 2004.
13. Trial Judgement, para. 485.
14. Ibid., paras 475-476.
15. Ibid., paras 499-500.
16. Ibid., paras 504 and 758.
17. Ibid., para. 502.
18. Ibid., para. 759. The following counts were dismissed: Count 2, Inhumane Acts as a Crime against Humanity; Count 3, Outrages on Personal Dignity as a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War; Count 4, Murder as a Crime against Humanity; Count 8, Torture as a Crime against Humanity ; Count 10, Cruel Treatment as a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War.
19. Trial Judgement, para. 760.
20. Order of the President for the Early Release of Milojica Kos, 1 August 2002.
21. Trial Judgement, para. 425.
22. Ibid., paras 468 and 469.
23. Ibid., para. 459.
24. Ibid., para. 461.
25. Ibid., paras 461- 462.
26. Ibid., paras 460- 463.
27. Ibid., paras 470 and 755.
28. Ibid., para. 467.
29. Ibid., para. 756. The following counts were dismissed: Count 2, Inhumane Acts as a Crime against Humanity; Count 3, Outrages on Personal Dignity as a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War; Count 4, Murder as a Crime against Humanity; Count 8, Torture as a Crime against Humanity ; Count 10, Cruel Treatment as a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War.
30. Trial Judgement, para. 757.
31. Ibid., paras 512 and 517.
32. Ibid., para. 526.
33. Ibid., para. 575.
34. Ibid., paras 578 and 761.
35. Ibid., paras 579 and 762. The following counts were dismissed: Count 2, Inhumane Acts as a Crime against Humanity; Count 3, Outrages on Personal Dignity as a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War; Count 4, Murder as a Crime against Humanity; Count 8, Torture as a Crime against Humanity; Count 10, Cruel Treatment as a Violation of the Laws or Customs of War; Count 14, Torture as a Crime against Humanity; Count 15, Rape as a Crime against Humanity; Count 17, Outrages upon Personal Dignity as a violation of the Laws or Customs of War.
36. Trial Judgement, para. 570.
37. Ibid., para. 763.
38. Ibid., para. 4.
39. Ibid., paras 4, 614, 676 and 684.
40. Ibid., paras 610 and 688.
41. Ibid., para. 672.
42. Ibid., para. 676. See generally para. 682 for conclusion.
43. Ibid., para. 691 (a).
44. Ibid., para. 691 (b).
45. Ibid., para. 691 (c).
46. Ibid., para. 691 (d).
47. Ibid., paras 692, 693 and 765.
48. Ibid., para. 766.
49. See Annex A: Procedural Background, paras 240-246.
50. See Decision on Prosecution’s Motion to Adduce Rebuttal Material, issued 12 March 2004.
51. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 64; Furundžija Appeal Judgement, paras 34-40; Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras 434-435; Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 29; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 35-48; Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, paras 4-12.
52. Akayesu Appeal Judgement, para. 178; Kayishema and Ruzindana Appeal Judgement, paras 177 and 320; Musema Appeal Judgement, para. 15.
53. Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement, IT/201, 7 March 2002, para. 4(b); see also Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 12.
54. Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 98; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 16; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 13; Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, paras 21-23.
55. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 10.
56. Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 6. See also Kambanda Appeal Judgement, para. 98: “(I(n the case of errors of law, the arguments of the parties do not exhaust the subject. It is open to the Appeals Chamber, as the final arbiter of the law of the Tribunal, to find in favour of an Appellant on grounds other than those advanced: jura novit curia”.
57. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 15; Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 17.
58. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 64; Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 37; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 63; Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 435; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 16; Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 18.
59. Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 39, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition, St. Paul, Minn 1999). See also Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 37 referring to Kupre skic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 30.
60. Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 37, referring to Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 64. See also Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 63; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 11; Musema Appeal Judgement, para. 18.
61. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 30; see also Blaskic Appeal Judgement, paras 17-18 ; Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 19, footnote 11.
62. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 6, 10 -12.
63. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 16-20 and 24.
64. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 31, 43 -45.
65. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 39, 40.
66. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 41-42.
67. Georgiadis v. Greece, 29 May 1997, Eur. Ct. H. R., Report 1997-III.
68. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 77.
69. See, e. g., Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 123.
70. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.18.
71. Ibid., para. 2.17.
72. Ibid., para. 2.18.
73. Ibid., para. 2.19.
74. Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 69; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 41.
75. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 498; Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 39; Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 382. See also above, para. 23.
76. Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras 481, 498; Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 32.
77. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 39.
78. Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 69 (footnotes omitted).
79. Cf. Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 21.
80. Cf. Decision on Prosecution Motion Requesting Order to Zoran Zigic to File Grounds of Appeal, 14 June 2002, para. 10.
81. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 88.
82. Niyitigeka Appeal Judgement, para. 194.
83. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 114.
84. Ibid., para. 88.
85. Galic Decision on Leave to Appeal, para. 15.
86. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Stanisic, Case No. IT-03-69-PT, Decision on Defence Preliminary Motions, 14 November 2003, p. 5; Prosecutor v. Meakic et al., Case No. IT-02-65-PT, Decision on Dusko Kneževic’s Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 4 April 2003, p. 6; Prosecutor v. Momcilo Krajisnik & Biljana Plavsic, Case No. IT-00-39&40-PT, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Consolidated Indictment, 4 March 2002, para. 13.
87. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 138.
88. See, e.g., Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, footnote 319; Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 350; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, paras 138-144.
89. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 92.
90. Ibid.
91. Niyetegeka Appeal Judgement, para. 196; Prosecutor v. Karemera et. al, ICTR-98-44-AR73, Decision on Prosecutor’s Interlocutory Appeal Against Trial Chamber III Decision of 8 October 2003 Denying Leave to File an Amended Indictment, 19 December 2003, para. 28: “The final consideration in determining the effect of the Amended Indictment on the fairness of the proceedings is the risk of prejudice to the Accused. The Trial Chamber concluded that proceeding to trial on the Amended Indictment without giving the Accused additional time to prepare their defence to the Amended Indictment would cause prejudice to the Accused. This problem, however, can be addressed by adjourning the trial to permit the Accused to investigate the additional allegations. The Trial Chamber also retains the option of proceeding with the presentation of the Prosecution case without delay; in such circumstances, however, there would be particular need to consider the exercise of the power to adjourn the proceedings in order to permit the Accused to carry out investigations and the power to recall witnesses for cross -examination after the Accused’s investigations are complete.”
92. Statute, Art. 25(1)(a).
93. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 114.
94. Niyitigeka Appeal Judgement, paras 198-199.
95. Ibid. para. 200.
96. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 17.
97. Radic Reply Brief, paras 17-28; see also AT. 176-177 (23 March 2004).
98. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 405; Zigic Reply Brief, para. 13.1.
99. Zigic Reply Brief, para. 13.2.
100. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 98.
101. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 99.
102. AT. 522 (26 March 2004).
103. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 4.7-4.8, referring to Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 190.
104. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.9, referring to Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Decision on the Defence Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Upon Defects in the Form Thereof (Vagueness/Lack of Adequate Charges), 4 April 1997, para. 11; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-PT, Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 24 February 1999, para. 12; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovi c, Case No. IT-98-34-PT, Decision on Defendant Vinko Martinovic’s Objection to the Indictment, 15 February 2000, paras 14-18.
105. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.9.
106. Ibid.
107. Ibid., paras 4.10-4.20.
108. See Case No. IT-95-4-I (or PT) Indictment, 10 February 1995; Case No. IT-95-8-PT, Indictment, 21 July 1995 ; Case No. IT-98-30-I, Amended Indictment, 12 June 1998; Amended Indictment, 31 May 1999; Amended Indictment, 29 August 2000.
109. Indictment, 26 October 2000, para. 16.
110. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Stanisic, Case No. IT-03-69-PT, Decision on Defence Preliminary Motions, 14 November 2003, p. 5; Prosecutor v. Meakic et al., Case No. IT-02-65-PT, Decision on Dusko Kne‘evic’s Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 4 April 2003, p. 6; Prosecutor v. Momcilo Krajisnik & Biljana Plavsic, Case No. IT-00-39&40-PT, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Leave To Amend the Consolidated Indictment, 4 March 2002, para. 13.
111. Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief, 9 April 1999, paras 209-210.
112. Prosecution Pre-trial Brief, paras 208-240.
113. Prosecution Pre-trial Brief, para. 236.
114. Prosecution Pre-trial Brief, paras 208-240.
115. Prosecution Pre-trial Brief, paras 220-229.
116. Prosecution Pre-trial Brief, paras 230-234.
117. Prosecution Pre-trial Brief, para. 234.
118. Prosecution Pre-trial Brief, para. 236.
119. T. 646-647.
120. T. 649.
121. T. 657.
122. T. 676-1010.
123. T. 1020-1070.
124. T. 1116-1117.
125. T. 1118.
126. T. 1120.
127. T. 6591.
128. Decision on Prosecution Request for Leave to File a Consolidated Indictment and to Correct Confidential Schedules, 13 October 2000, p. 5 (footnotes omitted).
129. Decision on Defence Motions for Acquittal, para. 33.
130. Ibid., para. 32.
131. Ibid., para. 40.
132. Ibid., para. 41.
133. Ibid., para. 53.
134. Ibid., para. 35 (footnote omitted).
135. Confidential Closing Statement of the Accused Mr. Kvocka, 29 June 2001, paras 55-76.
136. Prcac Closing Statement, T. 12686 -12688.
137. Trial Judgement, para. 247.
138. Ibid., para. 248 (footnote omitted).
139. Motion for Judgement of Acquittal -Defense for the Accused Zoran Zigic, 6 November 2000, para. 6.
140. Final Trial Brief Submissions by the Defence of the Accused Dragoljub Prcac, 2 July 2001, paras 425-494; Confidential Final Trial Brief-Defence for the Accused Zoran Zigic, 29 June 2001, paras 243-264; Confidential Closing Statement of the Accused Mr. Kvocka, 29 June 2001, paras 55-76; Zigic Defence Closing Statement, T. 12602; Kvocka Defence Closing Statement, T. 12521-12525; Prcac Closing Statement, T. 12643, 12661, 12686-12688. See also Confidential Final Written Submissions of Milojica Kos, 29 June 2001, pp. 72-75; Kos Defence Closing Statement, T. 12550-12551.
141. Radic Closing Statement, T. 12591.
142. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 101 and 122-123; Radic Appeal Brief, paras 26-31.
143. See Radic Appeal Brief, paras 26-31, as well as Radic Reply Brief, paras 5-16.
144. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 28 and Radic Reply Brief, para. 7.
145. Radic Appeal Brief, paras 27and 29; Radic Reply Brief, paras 9 and 11.
146. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 26.
147. Radic Reply Brief, para. 7.
148. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 31.
149. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 122, referring to the Celebici Trial Judgement.
150. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.3. See generally paras 6.2-6.11 of the Prosecution Respondent’s Brief.
151. Ibid., para. 6.4.
152. Ibid., paras 6.5-6.6.
153. Ibid., para. 6.7.
154. Ibid., para. 6.3.
155. Ibid., para. 5.81.
156. v, para. 5.140.
157. First Amended Indictment dated 12 June 1998 confirmed on 8 November 1998, para. 27.
158. Decision on Defence Preliminary Motions on the Form of the Indictment, 12 April 1999, para. 17.
159. Ibid., para. 18.
160. Ibid., para. 23.
161. Ibid., paras 22-24. In response to an objection by Radic, the Trial Chamber directed the Prosecution, in respect of those parts of the first Indictment where the term “including” is used to signify some of the victims of a crime, to list, to the extent possible, additional names of victims; see para. 26.
162. Decision on Defence Preliminary Motions on the Form of the Indictment, 12 April 1999, para. 32.
163. Ibid.
164. Confidential Schedules of Additional Particulars to the Submission of Amended Indictment pursuant to Trial Chamber Order of 12 April 1999.
165. Submission of Amended Indictment pursuant to Trial Chamber Order of 12 April 1999, filed on 31 May 1999. The four annexed Schedules were marked confidential. A public version of these annexes was filed on 1 March 2001, Prosecution’s Submission of New Public Schedules, following the Decision on Zoran Zigic’s Motion for Rescinding Confidentiality of Schedules Attached to the Indictment, 22 February 2001.
166. Decision on Defence Objections to the Amended Indictment, 8 November 1999, pp. 5-7.
167. With respect to Radic, the Trial Chamber noted that Schedule C lists 84 names of victims in relation to count 1-3 (as opposed to 2 previously); 22 in relation to count 4-5 (as opposed to 3 previously ); 15 in relation to count 8-10 (as opposed to 10 previously) and 5 in relation to count 14-17 (as opposed to 2 previously). See footnote 2 of the said decision.
168. See Decision on Prosecution Motion to Join Trials, 14 April 2000; Decision on Prosecution Request for Leave to File a Consolidated Indictment and to Correct Confidential Schedules, 13 October 2000.
169. Decision on Defence Motions for Acquittal, para. 30.
170. Ibid., para. 38.
171. Ibid., paras 46 and 63.
172. The Indictment reads for example that each accused is alleged to have “instigated, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the persecutions of Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats and other non-Serbs … through his direct participation in crimes and through his approval, encouragement, acquiescence and assistance in the development and continuation of the conditions in the camp and the on-going commission of crimes as described in paragraph 25 against the prisoners in the Omarska camp, including those set forth” in Schedule A through to E for example under count 1 to 3 of the Indictment (emphasis added ). Similarly, Radic is alleged to have “participated in the murder of prisoners at the Omarska camp including those listed” in Schedule C (emphasis added ).
173. Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 147; Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 88; see also above, para. 27.
174. Galic Decision on Leave to Appeal, para. 15, citing Prosecutor v. Brdjanin & Talic, Case No. IT-99 -36-PT, Decision on Objections by Momir Talic to the Form of the Amended Indictment, 20 February 2001, para. 18, as well as Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 88-90; see also above, para. 28.
175. Galic Decision on Leave to Appeal, para. 15.
176. Ibid., para. 16.
177. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 68.
178. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 765.
179. Galic Decision on Leave to Appeal, para. 14.
180. Ibid., para. 16, citing Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-PT, Decision on Preliminary Motion on Form of Amended Indictment, 11 February 2000, para. 54.
181. Trial Judgement, paras 45-118.
182. See for example paragraphs 189-307 of the Krnojelac Trial Judgement, which cover the factual findings relating to cruel treatment, inhumane acts, and torture.
183. Galic Trial Judgement, paras 206-581.
184. See for examples Trial Judgement, paras 547, 556, 641, 652, 663 and 664.
185. See for example Krnojelac Trial Judgement, para. 320.
186. Indictment, para. 38 (emphasis added).
187. See above, para 15.
188. See Tadic Appeal Judgement, paras 188, 195-226; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic et al., Case No. IT-99-37 -AR72, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic’s Motion Challenging Jurisdiction- Joint Criminal Enterprise, 21 May 2003, para. 20.
189. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 191.
190. Ibid., paras 195-226.
191. Ibid., para. 196. See also, Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 84 (“(A(part from the specific case of the extended form of joint criminal enterprise, the very concept of joint criminal enterprise presupposes that its participants, other than the principal perpetrator(s) of the crimes committed, share the perpetrators’ joint criminal intent.”)
192. Tadic Appeal Judgement, paras 202-203; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 89.
193. Tadic Appeal Judgement, paras 203, 220, 228.
194. Ibid., para. 204 (“Criminal responsibility may be imputed to all participants within the common enterprise where the risk of death occurring was both a predictable consequence of the execution of the common design and the accused was either reckless or indifferent to that risk.”)
195. Tadic Appeal Judgement, paras 228 and also 204, 220; Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 99.
196. Trial Judgement, para. 268 (footnote omitted).
197. Ibid., para. 326.
198. Ibid., para. 327.
199. See, e.g. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 162; Radic Appeal Brief, paras 47-49.
200. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.18.
201. Trial Judgement, para. 284.
202. Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement para. 102; see also Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 229; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement paras 31-33.
203. Prosecutor v. Milutinovic et al., Case No.: IT-99-37-AR72, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanic’s Motion Challenging Jurisdiction-Joint Criminal Enterprise, 21 May 2003, para. 20.
204. Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 102; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 75 (“(T(he acts of a participant in a joint criminal enterprise are more serious than those of an aider and abettor since a participant in a joint criminal enterprise shares the intent of the principal offender whereas an aider and abettor need only be aware of that intent.”)
205. See e.g. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 62; Radic Reply Brief, paras 32-37; Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 147-149, 348; Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 163-164, Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 406-408.
206. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.24.
207. Ibid., para. 3.9.
208. Trial Judgement, para. 308.
209. Ibid., para. 309.
210. Ibid., para. 311.
211. Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 100 (footnotes omitted).
212. See e. g. below, para. 599 (the case of “opportunistic visitors” who enter the camp to commit crimes).
213. Tadic Appeal Judgement paras 191, 199.
214. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 356 (“the accused did not have any special knowledge, skills or talents and, in the nature of things, he was easily replaceable.”); Radic Appeal Brief, para. 62 (“The Defence can only conclude that the system would have functioned in the same way even without the presence of the accused Radic”); Radic Reply Brief, para. 34 (“ Anyone could have replaced him since his presence is irrelevant for the events that took place in Omarska. Hence he could have been replaced at any time by anyone without any repercussions on the running of the camp”).
215. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 162 (“(T(he action has to be part of co-perpetration of some offense and also give its contribution to co-perpetration in the great extent”).
216. Tadic Appeal Judgement para. 191; see also para. 192: “Under these circumstances, to hold criminally liable as a perpetrator only the person who materially performs the criminal act would disregard the role as co-perpetrators of all those who in some way made it possible for the perpetrator physically to carry out that criminal act. At the same time, depending upon the circumstances, to hold the latter liable only as aiders and abettors might understate the degree of their criminal responsibility”.
217. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 163 (“Kvocka did not have any important position in the camp. He had no authority and influence over guards”), 164; Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 348, 352; Radic Appeal Brief, para. 57 (“ The Trial Chamber erroneously objectifies existence of joint criminal enterprise and it mistakenly takes (sic) that if Omarska is a joint criminal enterprise it automatically means that the shift leader of the guard must be the co-perpetrator in the joint criminal enterprise, without finding it necessary to establish individual circumstance of possible involvement of the accused”), 61-62 ; Radic Reply Brief, para. 36 (“(T(he authority is the key factor with which to determine the contribution to the joint criminal enterprise”).
218. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 6.96-6.125.
219. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 96.
220. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 364 -372.
221. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.29.
222. Trial Judgement, para. 278 (footnote omitted).
223. Radic Reply Brief paras 52-53, 62-63.
224. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 91; see below, paras 144, 383.
225. See above, para 97.
226. See Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 91, referring to Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 745.
227. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 136 (“Kvocka’s stay in the Omarska camp was not knowing, willingly and continuos ( sic) under joint criminal enterprise theory”), para. 144 (“(H(e was psychologically unstable…his presence in the camp was within the scope of official task in the extraordinary circumstances”), paras 154-160; Radic Appeal Brief, paras 51, 52 (“...the accused Radic acts in accordance with the structure of his personality, and that he obeys orders and acts through no initiative of his own which might be characterized as discriminatory intent”), 53; Prcac Appeal Brief paras 176-182, 349, 372; Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 404 (“(T(his was done for entirely personal reasons, i.e. for the reasons pointing to existence of an ordinary crime. Maltreatment of a person, as is frequently the case under influence of alcohol, may happen without any reason at all or even out of sadism regardless of who the victim is”).
228. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.36.
229. Ibid., para. 3.36-3.38.
230. Jelesic Appeal Judgement, para. 49, referring to Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 269; see also Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 102.
231. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 100.
232. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 35, 357; Radic Appeal Brief, paras 52, 303.
233. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 361 -363; Radic Appeal Brief, paras 52, 56 (“…the trial chamber does not assess whether the accused shared the intent with those who committed crimes included in the act of persecution in general”); Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 90 (“The Prosecution did not prove Kvocka’s mens rea for persecution under political and religious affiliation ”); Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 404 (“(T(his was done for entirely personal reasons, i.e. for the reasons pointing to existence of an ordinary crime. Maltreatment of a person, as is frequently the case under influence of alcohol, may happen without any reason at all or even out of sadism regardless of who the victim is”).
234. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.36.
235. Trial Judgement, para. 288.
236. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 111.
237. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 401.
238. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 107.
239. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 3.32-3.33.
240. See e.g. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 192.
241. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 81.
242. See below, paras 594-600.
243. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 3.40-3.50.
244. See also para. 426 of the Trial Judgement with regard to Prcac’s responsibility.
245. Decision on Defence Motions on Acquittal, para. 61.
246. Ibid.
247. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 358 -363; Radic Appeal Brief, paras 53-57; Radic Reply Brief, paras 30-32.
248. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 138 -144.
249. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 3.3 (ii), 3.20, 3.57.
250. Ibid., para. 3.57.
251. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 227(ii). See also Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 100.
252. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 97.
253. Kvocka’s Brief in Reply, para. 13. See also Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.3.
254. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 30.
255. Ibid., para. 11.
256. Decision on the Admission of the Record of the Interview of the Accused Kvocka, 16 March 2001 ( “Kvocka Admission Decision”). The interview was admitted as Exhibit P 3/203.
257. Oral Decision, T. 3520-3522.
258. Kvocka Admission Decision, p. 3.
259. Prosecutor v Mucic et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, Decision of the President on the Prosecutor’s Motion for the Production of Notes Exchanged between Zejnil Delalic and Zdravko Mucic, 11 November 1996 (“Delalic Decision”).
260. Kvocka Admission Decision, pp. 2-3.
261. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 18 -19.
262. Ibid., para. 17.
263. Ibid., para. 14.
264. Ibid.; Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 19.
265. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 18.
266. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 20.
267. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 19 ; Kvocka Reply Brief, paras 17, 20.
268. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.10 (emphasis in original).
269. Ibid., para. 5.12 (emphasis in original).
270. Ibid., para. 5.17.
271. Delalic Decision, para. 35.
272. Ibid.
273. Kvocka Admission Decision, p. 3.
274. Ibid.
275. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 533.
276. Kvocka Admission Decision, p. 3.
277. Appeal Hearings, 24 March 2004, AT. 263.
278. Trial Judgement, para. 363.
279. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 24 -29.
280. Ibid., paras 26-27.
281. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 26.
282. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 24.
283. Quoting exhibit P 3/203, p. 59.
284. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 26.
285. Ibid., para. 30.
286. Kvocka Reply Brief, paras 14- 15.
287. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.20.
288. Ibid., para. 5.22.
289. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 23.
290. Ibid., para. 24.
291. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 24.
292. Trial Judgement, para. 372.
293. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 70.
294. Trial Judgement, para. 372.
295. Ibid., para. 336.
296. Ibid., para. 343.
297. Ibid., para. 344.
298. Ibid., para. 398.
299. Ibid., paras 411-412.
300. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 30.
301. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 47.
302. Ibid., para. 66.
303. Ibid., paras 46-47.
304. Ibid., para. 48.
305. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 5.30-5.31.
306. Ibid., para. 5.51.
307. Ibid.
308. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 39. The Appeals Chamber understands that Kvocka refers to the “Rules on operational methods of the Public Security Service”, published in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 11 August 1977, submitted as part of Kvocka’s Reply Brief.
309. Kvocka Reply Brief, paras 41- 43.
310. See, e. g., Trial Judgement, paras 342, 344.
311. See, e. g., Trial Judgement, paras 362, 369.
312. Trial Judgement, para. 372.
313. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 48.
314. Ibid., para. 54.
315. Exhibit P 3/203, p. 21.
316. Ibid., p. 4.
317. Trial Judgement, para. 337.
318. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 55 -56.
319. Ibid., para. 57.
320. Ibid., para. 58.
321. Ibid., para. 61.
322. Ibid., para. 64.
323. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.44.
324. Ibid., para. 5.45.
325. Trial Judgement, para. 372.
326. Miroslav Kvocka, T. 8150.
327. Exhibit P3/203, p. 8.
328. Witness F, T. 5355, 5360 and 5405; for a discussion of Witness J’s testimony, see below paras 151-153.
329. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 49.
330. Trial Judgement, para. 368.
331. Ibid., para. 370.
332. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 50, p. 44.
333. Ibid., para. 50, p. 45.
334. Witness J, T. 4760-4762.
335. Ibid., T. 4761-4762.
336. Ibid., T. 4742.
337. Ibid.
338. Ibid., T. 4743.
339. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 49 (e).
340. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.37.
341. Azedin Oklopcic, T. 1757.
342. Miroslav Kvocka, T. 8154.
343. Azedin Oklopcic, T. 1756-1757.
344. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 49 (c).
345. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.35.
346. Witness AJ, T. 1610-1611.
347. Ibid., T. 1596.
348. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 49 (f), pp. 35-36.
349. Ibid., para. 49(f), p. 30.
350. Ibid., para. 49(f), p. 36.
351. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.38.
352. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 49.
353. Branko Rosic, T. 7493; Milenko Rosic, T. 7514-7515.
354. Witness AI, T. 2271-2272.
355. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 50, pp. 38-43.
356. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 47.
357. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.39.
358. Nusret Sivac, T. 3973-3974.
359. Ibid., T. 3970 and 3975.
360. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 49, p. 18.
361. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 50.
362. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 49, p.18.
363. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.33.
364. Ibid.; see also exhibit P3/203, pp. 16-17.
365. Trial Judgement, footnote 657.
366. Ibid., para. 379.
367. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 49 (b).
368. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.34
369. Witness A, T. 5500.
370. Ibid., T. 5469.
371. Trial Judgement, para. 557.
372. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 49 (d) and 50, pp.45-46.
373. Ibid., para. 50, pp.45 -46.
374. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 5.36 and 5.41
375. Ibid., para. 5.36.
376. Trial Judgement, para. 356.
377. Ibid., para. 355.
378. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 67 -68.
379. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.46.
380. Milutin Bujic, T. 7838.
381. Nada Markovski, T. 7776. Witness DD/10 had no knowledge of the organizational structure of the security forces: T. 10678.
382. Dragan Popovic, T. 7713.
383. Ibid., T. 7713, 7727.
384. Ibid., T. 7726.
385. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 34, 41.
386. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 33.
387. Ibid., para. 36.
388. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.31, with reference to similar arguments submitted by Prcac.
389. Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 217. In that Judgement, the Appeals Chamber was referring to the exact date of a crime, but the underlying reasoning applies to the present case as well.
390. Trial Judgement, paras 413-419.
391. Kvocka Reply Brief, para.93.
392. Ibid., para.101 and also paras 102-103.
393. Trial Judgement, para. 268 (emphasis added, footnote omitted).
394. See also Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 89.
395. Trial Judgement, para. 320
396. Ibid., paras 407-408, 413(d).
397. Ibid., para 414.
398. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 162.
399. Ibid., para. 163.
400. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.183.
401. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 106.
402. See above, paras 93-99.
403. See above, paras 96-97.
404. See above, para. 97.
405. Ibid.
406. See above, paras 89-90.
407. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para.163.
408. Ibid., paras 163-164.
409. Ibid.
410. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 164.
411. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.24.
412. Ibid.
413. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.184.
414. Ibid., para. 5.185.
415. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 229; Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.23.
416. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para.3.23, quoting Trial Judgement, para. 309.
417. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 108.
418. Ibid., para. 109.
419. See above, para. 174.
420. See above, para. 148.
421. See above, para. 101.
422. See above, paras 96-98.
423. Trial Judgement, para. 356.
424. Ibid., para. 372.
425. Ibid., paras 395-396.
426. Ibid., para. 404.
427. Ibid., para. 405.
428. Ibid., para. 404.
429. Ibid., para. 413 (e).
430. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 203; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, paras 32 and 89.
431. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 106.
432. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 156 -157.
433. Ibid., para. 149.
434. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.179.
435. Trial Judgement, para. 324.
436. Ibid., para. 372.
437. See above, para. 174.
438. Trial Judgement, para. 385.
439. Ibid., para. 397.
440. Ibid., paras 408 and 413 (e).
441. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 138.
442. Ibid., para. 142.
443. Ibid., para. 144.
444. Ibid., para. 145.
445. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 95.
446. Ibid., para. 95, referring to Krnojelac Trial Judgement.
447. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 103.
448. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 227(ii); see also Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 100; and above, para. 117.
449. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 96.
450. Ibid., para. 97.
451. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 146.
452. Ibid., para. 147.
453. Ibid., para. 148.
454. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.173.
455. Ibid., para. 5.174.
456. Ibid., para. 5.175.
457. Trial Judgement, paras 370, 386 -397.
458. Ibid., para. 395.
459. Ibid., paras 370(a) and (b), 378, 383, 387, 395.
460. Ibid., para. 396.
461. Ibid., para. 414.
462. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 154.
463. Ibid., paras 157-158.
464. Ibid., para.159.
465. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.180.
466. Trial Judgement, para. 403.
467. Ibid., paras 399-404.
468. Ibid., para. 400.
469. Ibid., para. 404.
470. Ibid., para. 401.
471. Witness DD/10, T. 10700 (private session; emphasis added).
472. Ibid.
473. Trial Judgement, para. 400, quoting Branko Starkevic, T. 9266, 9289-9291.
474. Trial Judgement, para. 399, referring to Kvocka’s testimony, T. 8405.
475. Trial Judgement, para. 402.
476. Ibid.; see also footnote 679.
477. Ibid., para. 403.
478. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 152.
479. Ibid.
480. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.177.
481. Trial Judgement, footnote 680.
482. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 149.
483. The documents Kvocka is referring to is Defence exhibit D-1/39. This exhibit consists of a circular signed by Stojan Zupljanin, Chief of Banja Luka Security Services Centre. Even if the circular seems to have been signed on 1 July 1992, the date of 6 July 1992 appears on top of the document. This circular brings a decision of 22 June 1992 taken by the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region of Krajina to the attention of Public Security Stations’chiefs. The decision in question implies that non Serb nationals and Serbs showing no allegiance to the Serbian Democratic Party shall be excluded from important positions relevant to the “Economy” as of 26 June 1992. Since it lists amongst entities concerned both the Ministry of Interior and the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and is attached to a circular according to which public security positions are also concerned, it seems that it would have been applicable to Omarska camp guards.
484. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 151.
485. Ibid., para. 153. The Appeals Chamber understands that Kvocka refers as the Crisis Staff Decision the Decision taken by the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region of Krajina on 22 June 1992.
486. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.176
487. Ibid., para. 5.178.
488. Trial Judgement, para. 402.
489. See above, footnote 485.
490. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 92: “In spite of enormous odious towards mixed marriage during the war and the biggest national tensions, Mr. Kvocka supported multiethnic marriage and accepted to be a marriage witness (…). In the period of hard economical conditions, he used to provide a job for his new best man, Mr. Hasan Oklopcic (Bosnian Muslim). (…) A young man, Bosnian Muslim, used to sleep for two years in the same room with Kvocka’s son (…).” (footnotes omitted).
491. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 92 -93.
492. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.60.
493. Kvocka Reply Brief, paras 74- 75.
494. Trial Judgement, paras 331-332.
495. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 154.
496. Ibid., para. 160.
497. Ibid.
498. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.36. See also para. 3.38, referring to Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 269.
499. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 97.
500. Ibid., paras 100-103.
501. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 203; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, paras 32 and 89.
502. Trial Judgement, paras 273 and 284.
503. Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 120.
504. Trial Judgement, para. 414.
505. Ibid., para. 413(e).
506. See Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 100; see also above, para. 106.
507. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para.154.
508. Trial Judgement, para. 272, referring to Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 220.
509. Ibid., para. 278, referring to Dachau Concentration Camp, pp. 15-16.
510. Ibid., paras 116-117.
511. Ibid., paras 356, 399- 400.
512. Ibid., paras 374-385, 413(a).
513. Ibid., paras 358-372.
514. Ibid., paras 386-396.
515. Ibid., paras 408 and 413 (e).
516. Ibid., paras 407-408, 413(d).
517. See, e.g., Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 111.
518. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 107.
519. Ibid., para. 99; Kvocka’s Brief in Reply, paras 11-12.
520. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.78.
521. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 81. See above, para. 112.
522. Decision on Prosecution Request for Leave to File a Consolidated Indictment and to Correct Confidential Schedules, 13 October 2000, p. 4.
523. Trial Judgement, para. 349, referring to Decision on Defence Motions on Acquittal of 15 December 2000, para. 61.
524. Trial Judgement, para. 349.
525. See above, para. 114.
526. Trial Judgement, para. 356.
527. See ibid., para. 356.
528. Information repeated in paragraph 397 of the Trial Judgement. The Trial Chamber alternates the following terms: “during the time he was working in the camp” (para. 412), “during the period when Kvocka worked in the camp” (footnote 686) and “during the time that Kvocka was working in the camp” (para. 416).
529. Trial Judgement, para. 413 (emphasis added).
530. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 101.
531. Ibid.
532. Ibid., paras 102-106.
533. Ibid., para. 107.
534. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.80.
535. Ibid.
536. Ibid., para. 5.83.
537. Ibid., paras 5.102-5.103.
538. Trial Judgement, para. 132.
539. Krnojelac Trial Judgement, para. 326.
540. Ibid., paras 326-327. See also Tadic Trial Judgement, para. 240.
541. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 423; Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 37. See also. Jelisi c Trial Judgement, para. 35; Kupreskic et al. Trial Judgement, paras 560-561; Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 217; Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 236; Krstic Trial Judgement, para. 485; Krnojelac Trial Judgement, para. 324; Vasiljevic Trial Judgement, para. 205; Staki c Trial Judgement, para. 584; Galic Trial Judgement, para. 150.
542. See above, paras 55-76.
543. See Trial Judgement, para. 312.
544. See ibid., para. 76.
545. See ibid., para. 379(f ).
546. See ibid., footnote 164.
547. See ibid., paras 599-609.
548. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 102.
549. Ibid.
550. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.91.
551. Ibid., para. 5.92.
552. Ibid.
553. Kvocka Reply Brief, paras 81 and 82.
554. Ermin Strikovic, T. 3583-3585.
555. Fadil Avdagic, T. 3423-3429.
556. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.91.
557. Ibid., para. 5.92.
558. See Trial Judgement, paras 346-348, 356.
559. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 102, p. 64.
560. Ibid.
561. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.96.
562. Ibid., paras 5.97-5.98.
563. Ibid., para. 5.98.
564. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 80.
565. Trial Judgement, para. 63.
566. Ibid., footnote 164 referring to the testimony of Jasmir Okic, T. 2566-2567.
567. Jasmir Okic, T. 2566-2567.
568. Witness AK, T. 2023-2025.
569. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 102, p. 65.
570. Ibid.
571. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.84.
572. Ibid.
573. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 84.
574. Ibid.
575. Ibid.
576. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 81. See above, para. 112.
577. Trial Judgement, para. 379(f), quoting Mirsad Alisic, T. 2485-2486.
578. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 102, p. 66.
579. Ibid.
580. Ibid.
581. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.85.
582. Ibid.
583. Ibid., paras 5.86-5.87.
584. Kvocka Reply Brief, paras 81- 82.
585. See above, para. 255.
586. See above, para. 112.
587. Trial Judgement, para. 312 and footnote 686.
588. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 108 -132.
589. Ibid., para. 112, referring to Furundzija Trial Judgement, para. 162 and Akayesu Trial Judgement, para. 594.
590. Ibid., paras 113, 116, 123-127.
591. Ibid., paras 120-121.
592. Ibid., para. 127, p. 76.
593. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 5.112-5.119.
594. Ibid., paras 5.120-5.121, quoting Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 148. The Prosecution submits that the Appeals Chamber nevertheless appears to have reserved its judgement on whether “a person acting in private capacity could be found guilty of the crime of torture”.
595. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 5.122-5.125.
596. Ibid., paras 5.107 and 5.126.
597. Ibid., paras 5.127-5.131.
598. Ibid., paras 5.132-5.134.
599. Ibid.
600. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 112 and 127, p. 76.
601. Trial Judgement, para. 138.
602. Ibid., para. 139.
603. See Trial Judgement, para. 141.
604. Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 148.
605. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 121.
606. Ibid., paras 116, 123.
607. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.16.
608. Ibid., paras 2.17-2.18.
609. Ibid., para. 2.18.
610. Ibid., para. 2.19.
611. Ibid., para. 2.20.
612. Ibid., para. 5.140.
613. Ibid., para. 5.141.
614. Ibid., para. 5.142.
615. Ibid., paras 5.143-5.144.
616. Ibid., paras 5.146-5.148.
617. Ibid., para. 5.161.
618. See above, para. 23.
619. See above, para. 72.
620. See above, para. 73.
621. See above, paras 74-75.
622. Trial Judgement, para. 141.
623. This is a different individual than the victim with the same name mentioned by the Trial Chamber in the Judgement ; cf. footnote Error! Bookmark not defined., below.
624. See Trial Judgement, paragraphs and respective footnotes of paragraphs 597-598.
625. Ibid., paragraphs and respective footnotes of paragraphs 74-75, 597-598 and 691(c).
626. Ibid., paras 598, 685, 691(d), 692.
627. Ibid., paras 597, 598, 685, 691(c).
628. Ibid., para. 493.
629. Ibid., para. 589.
630. Ibid., para. 534.
631. Ibid., para. 535.
632. Ibid., paras 597-598, 685 and 691(c). The victim named Asef Kapetanovic referred to here is the one tortured in the “white house” and on the Pista, not the one killed upon his arrival at the camp.
633. See Trial Judgement, para. 530.
634. Ibid.
635. Ibid., footnote 194 referring to the witness’ testimony.
636. Ibid., paras 609 and 691 (c).
637. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 124.
638. Ibid.
639. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.150.
640. IT/201, issued 7 March 2002.
641. See Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 12; see also above, para. 15.
642. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 126.
643. Ibid., para. 127, p. 75.
644. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.152, relying on its submissions contained in paras 3.10-3.11.
645. Ibid., para. 3.11.
646. Ibid., para. 5.158.
647. See above, para. 290.
648. See above, para. 255.
649. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 127, p. 75.
650. Ibid.
651. Ibid.
652. Ibid.
653. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.162.
654. Ibid., para. 5.163.
655. See above, para. 290.
656. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 127, pp. 75-76.
657. Ibid., para. 127, p. 75.
658. Ibid., para. 127, pp. 75-76.
659. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.166.
660. See Trial Judgement, para. 589, referring to Witness AK’s testimony. See Witness AK, T. 2026-2036.
661. The victim Asef Kapetanovic referred to here is the individual tortured in the White house and in the Pista, not the individual killed upon his arrival at the camp.
662. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 127, p. 76, and para. 131.
663. Ibid., para. 127, p. 76.
664. Ibid., para. 131.
665. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.164.
666. Ibid., para. 5.165.
667. Ibid., para. 5.136.
668. Ibid.
669. Trial Judgement, paras 593 and 597.
670. Ibid., paras 598, 691( d).
671. See above, paras 290-291.
672. See above, para. 284.
673. The victim to whom it is referred here is the one allegedly killed upon his arrival at the camp.
674. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 128.
675. See above, para. 290.
676. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 72, quoting Kupreskic et al. Trial Judgement, para. 621.
677. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 72.
678. Ibid.
679. Trial Judgement, paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 452 and 557.
680. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 86, 94 and 107.
681. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 49, 94-96.
682. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 437, 482, 490, 518 and 541.
683. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 58, 482, 483 and 493.
684. Ibid., paras 86, 368 and 382.
685. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 55, 82, 370, 391, 435, 436, 445, 482, 487, 493 and 495.
686. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 71, 98, 370, 391, 436, 540, 547 and 561.
687. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 593, 597, 598 and 685.
688. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 437 and 593.
689. Ibid., para. 493.
690. Ibid., para. 534.
691. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 382, 387, 411, 444, 483, 527, 528, 569, 587-593, 597-598.
692. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 93, 514, 520, 528, 535, 542 and 614.
693. Ibid., paras 483, 530, 585-598, 685. The victim named Asef Kapetanovic to which it is referred here is the one tortured in the White house and in the Pista, not the one killed upon his arrival at the camp.
694. Ibid., para. 530.
695. Ibid., paras 599-609.
696. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 85, 368, 436, 487, 528, 536, 537, 540 and 593.
697. Ibid., para. 530.
698. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 55, 59, 368, 487, 585-598.
699. Ibid., paras 548 and 549.
700. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 49, 50, 54, 71, 104, 107, 436, 437, 444, 445, 491, 518, and 546.
701. Ibid., paras 547, 561.
702. Ibid., paras 551, 552, 559.
703. Ibid., para. 76.
704. Ibid., footnote 164.
705. Ibid., paras 599-609.
706. Ibid., paras 83 and 379 (f).
707. See above, paras 268, 271, 277.
708. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 83.
709. Ibid., para. 72, quoting Kupreskic et al. Trial Judgement, para. 621.
710. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 72 and 81-82; Kvocka Reply Brief, paras 63 and 64.
711. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 5.66, 5.68 and 5.70.
712. Ibid., para. 5.73.
713. Trial Judgement, para. 184, referring to Tadic Trial Judgement, para. 715.
714. Trial Judgement, para. 184, refering to Kupreskic et al. Trial Judgement, para. 621.
715. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 185; Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 113; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 131; Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 101.
716. Trial Judgement, paras. 184-185.
717. See Trial Judgement, para. 185; also Kupreskic et al. Trial Judgement, paras 615(e) and 622; Krnojelac Trial Judgement, para. 434.
718. See also Article 4(2)( e) of Additional Protocol II.
719. See ibid.
720. Trial Judgement, paras 190-191 (footnote omitted).
721. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 74 and Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 65.
722. Kvocka Reply Brief, paras 66- 67.
723. Schedule A, counts 1-3.
724. Schedule A, counts 4 and 5.
725. Trial Judgement, para. 530.
726. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 81.
727. Ibid., para. 76.
728. Ibid., para. 78.
729. Ibid., para. 79.
730. Ibid., para. 80.
731. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.56.
732. Ibid.
733. Ibid.
734. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 55.
735. Ibid., para. 55.
736. Trial Judgement, para. 349.
737. Ibid., para. 356.
738. Ibid., para. 413(c).
739. See Trial Judgement para. 99, referring to T. 4779-4783 in footnotes 240 and 241. Witness J testified that Nedeljko Grabovac, alias Kapitan, stayed in the camp approximately ten days in July 1992: Witness J, T. 4780.
740. Trial Judgement, footnote 686.
741. Ibid., para. 752.
742. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 84.
743. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 5.57.
744. Ibid.
745. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 56.
746. Ibid., para. 57.
747. Ibid., para. 58.
748. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 96.
749. Ibid., para. 95.
750. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 5.74-5.75.
751. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 68.
752. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 86 referring to Trial Judgement, para. 194.
753. Ibid., para. 87.
754. Ibid., para. 89.
755. Ibid., para. 90.
756. Ibid., para. 92.
757. Ibid., paras 93-94.
758. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 5.62-5.65
759. Ibid., para. 5.60.
760. Kvocka Reply Brief, paras 71 and 72.
761. Ibid., paras 74-75.
762. Ibid., para. 76.
763. Trial Judgement, paras 197-198, 202.
764. Ibid., para. 413(e).
765. See above, paras 77-119.
766. See above, paras 26-54.
767. Radic Appeal Brief, paras 26- 31, as well as Radic Reply Brief, paras 5-16.
768. See above, paras 55-76.
769. Trial Judgement, paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 79, 82, 86, 368, 379, 381, 532 and 534.
770. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 86, 94 and 107.
771. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 49, 94-96 and 529.
772. Ibid., para. 74, footnote 194.
773. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 437, 482, 490, 518 and 541.
774. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 58, 482, 483 and 493.
775. Ibid., paras 86, 368 and 382.
776. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 55, 82, 370, 391, 435, 436, 445, 482, 487, 493 and 495.
777. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 71, 98, 370, 391, 436, 540, 547 and 561.
778. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 94, 527, 530 and 541.
779. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 74, 593, 597.
780. Ibid., footnote 194.
781. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 437, 455, 527, 593.
782. Ibid., para. 531.
783. Ibid., para. 493.
784. Ibid., para. 534.
785. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 43, 75, 382, 387, 411, 444, 483, 527, 569 and 587-593.
786. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 514, 528, 535 and 614.
787. Ibid., paras 483, 530, 585-598.
788. Ibid., para. 530.
789. Ibid., para. 445.
790. Ibid., paras 599-609.
791. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 85, 368, 436, 487, 528, 536, 537, 540 and 593.
792. Ibid., para. 530.
793. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 55, 59, 368, 487, 585-598.
794. Ibid., paras 548 and 549.
795. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 49, 50, 54, 71, 104, 107, 436, 437, 444, 445, 491, 518, 546.
796. Ibid., paras 547, 561.
797. Ibid., paras 551, 552, 559.
798. Ibid., para. 76.
799. Ibid., para. 531.
800. Ibid., paras 445, 537.
801. Ibid., paras 599-609.
802. Ibid., paras 83 and 379.
803. Ibid., paras 495 and 536.
804. Ibid., paras 83, 487 and 491.
805. Ibid., paras 76-77. The Appeals Chamber understands that the Trial Chamber recounted the facts leading to the death of this victim because it believed them to be established beyond reasonable doubt.
806. Ibid., para. 531.
807. Ibid., paras 445 and 537.
808. Ibid., paras 599-609.
809. Ibid., paras 83 and 379 (f).
810. Ibid., para. 536.
811. Ibid., paras 83, 487 and 491.
812. Under the name Mirso Crnalic also known as Asmir.
813. Trial Judgement, para. 534.
814. Ibid., para. 530.
815. Ibid., para. 530.
816. Ibid., paras 593, 598.
817. Ibid., para. 589.
818. Ibid., para. 537.
819. Ibid., para. 535.
820. Ibid., paras 599-609.
821. Indictment, para. 42. Zlata Cikota is listed in Schedule C, together with Witnesses A, K, F and J.
822. Trial Judgement, paras 546-561.
823. Ibid., paras 551-553, 559.
824. Ibid., paras 547, 559.
825. Ibid., paras 547, 559.
826. Ibid., paras 548-549, 559.
827. Ibid., para. 557.
828. See above, paras 74-76.
829. Radic Appeal Brief, paras 33- 34.
830. Ibid., para. 35.
831. Ibid., para. 36.
832. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 6.84-6.86.
833. Ibid., paras 6.87-6.88.
834. Trial Judgement, paras 547, 556.
835. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 64.
836. Ibid., paras 72-74.
837. Ibid., para. 75.
838. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.141.
839. Trial Judgement, paras 197-198.
840. See above, paras 319-320.
841. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 67.
842. Ibid., para. 71.
843. Ibid.
844. Georgiadis v. Greece, 29 May 1997, Eur. Ct. H. R., Report 1997-III.
845. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 77.
846. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.143.
847. Ibid., para. 6.144.
848. Ibid., para. 6.146.
849. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 184.
850. Ibid., para. 186; Kordi c and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 950.
851. See above, para. 106.
852. Trial Judgement, para. 571(g).
853. Georgiadis v. Greece, 29 May 1997, Eur. Ct. H. R., Report 1997-III.
854. Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 41; Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 69; see above, para. 23.
855. See above, para. 25.
856. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 73.
857. Ibid., para. 66.
858. Trial Judgement, para. 560.
859. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 86.
860. Ibid., paras 88-92.
861. Ibid., para. 93.
862. He relies in particular on Witnesses DC/2, DC/3 and Branko Starkevic in this respect, Radic Appeal Brief, paras 96-98.
863. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 99.
864. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.16. The Prosecution refers to the evidence considered by the Trial Chamber in para. 6.17.
865. Ibid., para. 6.18.
866. In the Trial Judgement, the name is spelled Starkevic; in the witness list, Starcevic.
867. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.20. The Prosecution also considers Witness J’s evidence, para. 6.35.
868. Paras 513-524 of the Trial Judgement and the pertaining footnotes include references to fifteen witnesses.
869. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 88.
870. Witness B, T. 2368-2369.
871. Witness DC/3, T. 8823.
872. Branko Starkevic, T. 9284.
873. See above, para. 19.
874. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 107.
875. Ibid., paras 109-111.
876. Ibid., paras 113-120.
877. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.26.
878. Witness DC/1, T. 8753.
879. Trial Judgement, para. 520.
880. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 119.
881. Witness DC/6, T. 8922-8923.
882. Trial Judgement, para. 28.
883. Witness DC/4, T. 8851.
884. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 118.
885. Witness DC/5, T. 8885.
886. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 152.
887. Ibid., para. 123.
888. Ibid., para. 122.
889. Ibid., para. 155.
890. Ibid., para. 142.
891. Ibid., para. 154 with reference to Sikirica et al. Sentencing Judgement, para. 28.
892. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.28.
893. Ibid., para. 6.29.
894. Ibid., para. 6.32.
895. Ibid., para. 6.37.
896. See above, para. 144 and also para 104.
897. Trial Judgement, para. 319.
898. Ibid., para. 566.
899. For the requirements of responsibility under Article 7(3), see Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras 190-192.
900. Trial Judgement, paras 513-526.
901. Ibid., para. 519.
902. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 141.
903. Sikirica et al. Sentencing Judgement, para. 28.
904. The Sikirica et al. Trial Chamber made particular findings as to the crimes committed by these visitors, among them Zoran Zigic; Sikirica et al. Sentencing Judgement, paras 95-100.
905. Radic Appeal Brief, paras 157 -159.
906. Ibid., paras 160 and 167.
907. Ibid., paras 160-165.
908. Ibid., paras 166-176.
909. Ibid., para. 185.
910. Ibid., para. 189.
911. See above, para. 383.
912. Trial Judgement, para. 539.
913. Ibid., para. 544.
914. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 193.
915. Ibid., para. 206.
916. See above, para. 383.
917. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 208.
918. Ibid., para. 209.
919. Ibid., para. 211.
920. Ibid., para. 211.
921. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.62.
922. Trial Judgement, para. 177.
923. Kunarac et al. Trial Judgement, para. 460.
924. Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 128.
925. Radic Reply Brief, para. 75.
926. Furundžija Trial Judgement, para. 168; Celebici Trial Judgement paras 476-479; Furundžija Appeal Judgement, para. 210.
927. Trial Judgement, para. 555.
928. Furundzija Trial Judgement, para. 271; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 132-133.
929. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 292.
930. See above, para. 23.
931. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 278.
932. Ibid., paras 270-273.
933. Ibid., paras 273-276.
934. Ibid., para. 290.
935. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.76.
936. Trial Judgement, para. 549.
937. For example, Radic told her after he released her that they should have sexual intercourse on another occasion “the proper way” (T. 4779), whereas “Kapitan” told her that if she would continue to resist, he could be rough, much rougher than on that occasion (T. 4782).
938. Trial Judgement, para. 98.
939. Ibid., paras 573, 578, 761.
940. Ibid., para. 578, 761. Radic was also convicted for torture under count 9 of the Indictment, but this conviction refers to torture by beatings, cf. Indictment, para. 38.
941. Trial Judgement, para. 579.
942. Ibid., paras 573-574.
943. Witness J, T. 4778.
944. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 212.
945. Ibid., paras 213-214.
946. Ibid., paras 234-246.
947. Ibid., paras 249-252.
948. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.68.
949. Trial Judgement, para. 552.
950. Radic Appeal Brief, paras 255 -256.
951. Vinka Andzic, T. 9133-9134; Witness K, T. 4983.
952. Vinka Andzic, T. 9133, 9150.
953. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 291.
954. Trial Judgement, para. 561.
955. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.82.
956. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 307.
957. Ibid., para. 53.
958. See above, paras 117-118.
959. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 300.
960. Ibid., para. 301-302.
961. Ibid., para. 303.
962. Ibid., para. 305.
963. Ibid., para. 304.
964. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.108.
965. Ibid., para. 6.112.
966. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 206 ; cf. above, para.391.
967. Cf. above, para.367.
968. Radic Appeal Brief, paras 294 -297.
969. Ibid., para. 296.
970. Ibid., paras 296-299.
971. Trial Judgement, paras 563-565.
972. Mlado Radic, T. 11297.
973. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 62.
974. Ibid., para. 41.
975. Ibid., para. 310(c) (e ).
976. Ibid., para. 62.
977. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.116.
978. See above, para. 98.
979. See above, para. 97.
980. See above, paras 26-119.
981. See e.g., Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 152, 284. In para. 29 he even requested the Appeals Chamber to consider his entire Final Trial Brief as component of his Appeal Brief.
982. Zigic Additional Document, para. 58.
983. Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 44-45. See above, para. 15; also para. 294.
984. Decision on Appellants’ Motion to Admit Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115, 16 February 2004.
985. Kupreskic et al., Appeal Judgement, paras 75-76
986. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 22. Cf. Musema Appeal Judgement, paras. 184-194. In Musema, the Appeals Chamber applied that same deferential standard of review in quashing the accused’s conviction for rape because it found that on the basis of the totality of the evidence, a trier of fact would have reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt.
987. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 23.
988. Ibid.
989. Ibid.
990. The Appeals Chamber notes that this is a summary of the test developed in para. 23 of the Blaskic Appeal Judgement and must therefore be read taking into consideration the entire context of the decision with regard to this holding. In light of the affirmation of the test first articulated in the Kupreskic Appeal Judgement and the reasoning found in paras 22-23 of the Blaskic Appeal Judgement, the Appeals Chamber considers that the Appeals Chamber in Blaskic obviously considered that if such a determination is also reached on the basis of the trial record taken together with the evidence admitted on appeal, then no further examination of the matter is needed.
991. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 24(c).
992. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 32 (footnote omitted). This was confirmed by Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 17.
993. See e.g. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 338-348. In Kupreskic, the Appeals Chamber considered the testimony of Witness AT, admitted as additional evidence under Rule 115, as it pertained to Drago Josipovic’s appeal. The Appeals Chamber concluded that because Witness AT could not bring himself to tell the truth about his own involvement in the Ahmici attack and because Witness AT’s wife was a close relative of Josipovic, Witness AT’s evidence was “so unreliable” as to Josipovic’s appeal that it was incapable of making his conviction for participation in the attack on Ahmici unsafe. Thus, the Appeals Chamber in Kupreskic did not need to take into consideration this additional evidence together with the evidence before the Trial Chamber and simply reviewed the safety of Josipovic’s conviction on the basis of whether a reasonable trier of fact could have convicted him on the basis of the trial record alone. It is true that the Appeals Chamber in Kupreskic then proceeded to assess Witness AT’s testimony together with the trial record as if it theoretically was reliable evidence and concluded that, even then, it would not challenge the safety of Josipovic’s conviction. However, the Appeals Chamber considers that this latter analysis was pure dicta given that Witness AT’s evidence had already been rejected as “so unreliable” by the Appeals Chamber in Kupreskic that it did not need to be considered any further with regard to reviewing Josipovic’s conviction. See also Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, paras. 473-489, wherein the Appeals Chamber found that the additional evidence admitted in support of the accused’s alibi was insufficiently probative for challenging the accused’s conviction because the evidence so lacked credibility. The Appeals Chamber came to this conclusion because the evidence consisted of a personal opinion that was formulated upon underlying information that appeared to have no relevance for establishing that alibi.
994. See above, paras 26-76.
995. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 67; Zigic Reply Brief, para. 14.
996. Decision on Zoran Zigic’s Motion for Rescinding Confidentiality of Schedules Attached to the Indictment, 23 february 2001.
997. T. 6805-6806 (Private Session ).
998. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 4.42 and 4.38.
999. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 61- 63.
1000. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 87.
1001. Ibid., para. 89 (footnotes omitted).
1002. Decision on Defence Preliminary Motions on the Form of the Indictment, 12 April 1999, para. 23.
1003. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 62.
1004. Trial Judgement, para. 208.
1005. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 365.
1006. Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 217.
1007. In addition to the names the Trial Chamber referred to, Edin Ganic mentioned the “Banovic brothers” and one Lai c, T. 5906.
1008. Trial Judgement, paras 656- 658.
1009. Edin Ganic, T. 5880.
1010. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 267 -268. For further details about the Schedules and their purpose, see above , paras 55-76. The particulars concerning Zigic are found in Schedule D.
1011. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 269.
1012. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.43.
1013. Trial Judgement, para. 691.
1014. Indictment, para. 25(b).
1015. Zigic Additional Document, para. 40 identifies as ground of appeal 29 “Zigic is no way indicted with charge of beating of Redzep Grabic” (sic). However, as the corresponding para. 329 of Zigic’s Appeal Brief refers to Witness AE exclusively, the Appeals Chamber understands that this ground of appeal refers to Witness AE only.
1016. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 329.
1017. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.193.
1018. Ibid., para. 7.196.
1019. Witness AE, T. 4289.
1020. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 361.
1021. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 7.230-7.231.
1022. Ibid., para. 7.227.
1023. Trial Judgement, paras 690- 691.
1024. Simic et al. Trial Judgement, para. 97.
1025. See above, para. 35.
1026. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 6 -56.
1027. Ibid., para. 37.
1028. See above, paras 23- 26.
1029. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 22-23.
1030. Zigic Additional Document, para. 50.
1031. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 371.
1032. An exception is the testimony of Husein Ganic. As Zigic challenges his evidence also in the context of his conviction for the beating of Edin Ganic, the Appeals Chamber will discuss it in this context, see below paras 588-593.
1033. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 47 -48.
1034. Ibid., para. 52.
1035. The Prosecution refers to the arguments in relation to Kvocka’s grounds of appeal nos 5 and 6, and to Radic’s ground of appeal no 3, Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.264.
1036. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.131.
1037. Ibid., para. 6.135.
1038. Ibid., para. 6.143-6.144.
1039. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 185; Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 113; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 131; Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 101.
1040. See above, para 320.
1041. Trial Judgement, paras 197- 198.
1042. Ibid., para. 21.
1043. Cf. Trial Judgement, para. 645 (Keraterm), para. 682 (Keraterm and Trnopolje).
1044. Jugoslav Gnjatovic, T. 10322.
1045. Ibid., T. 10323.
1046. Cf. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 186.
1047. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 252. The last fact was also mentioned by the Prosecution (T. 12441). However, the testimony of Witness Y on which Zigic relies does not support it: Witness Y, T. 3592 (private session).
1048. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 395.
1049. Trial Judgement, para. 195.
1050. Ibid., para. 122.
1051. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 184; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 164.
1052. For Trnopolje, the exact location of the one incident Zigic was accused of, the beating of Hasan Karabasic, is contested between the parties; the Trial Chamber found it took place inside the camp: Trial Judgement, para. 677.
1053. Cf. Trial Judgement, para. 202.
1054. Trial Judgement, para. 618.
1055. Abdulah Brkic, T. 4484.
1056. Trial Judgement, para. 656.
1057. Ibid., para. 677.
1058. Cf. Mirsad Alisic, T. 2466-2467.
1059. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 366 (ground of appeal no 38).
1060. Ibid., para. 252 (ground of appeal no 17).
1061. Trial Judgement, para. 203 footnote 383.
1062. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 270.
1063. Ibid., para. 269.
1064. Ibid., para. 272.
1065. Trial Judgement, para. 190.
1066. Witness DD/6, T. 9851; Jugoslav Gnjatovic, T. 10331. Witness DD/5 also mentioned these conflicts, but did not attribute the maltreatment of Drago Tokmadzic to them, T. 9973.
1067. Witness Y, T. 3608-3609. The Appeals Chamber notes that Emsud Bahonjic also was a police officer: Trial Judgement, para. 617. Non-Serbian police officers seem to have been regarded as potentially dangerous.
1068. Witness Y, T. 3591-3594 (private session).
1069. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 394.
1070. Zigic Additional Document, para. 51: ground of appeal 40.
1071. Prosecution’s Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.234.
1072. Zigic Reply Brief, para. 40.
1073. Trial Judgement, para. 203.
1074. T. 12594-12600.
1075. Trial Judgement, paras 599- 604.
1076. Zigic Additional Document, paras 15-17.
1077. Zigic Reply Brief, paras 25.3-25.4. Also, see para. 25.9.
1078. Trial Judgement, para. 608.
1079. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 100.
1080. Ibid., para. 101.
1081. Ibid., para. 143.
1082. Ibid., para. 102.
1083. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.19-7.21. Also, paras 7.28-7.30.
1084. Ibid., para. 7.21.
1085. Ibid., paras 7.39-7. 40.
1086. Witness T, T. 2731 (closed session).
1087. Ibid., T. 2732 (closed session).
1088. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 106 -109.
1089. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.35; cf. Kunarac et al. Trial Judgement, para. 562.
1090. Zigic Reply Brief, para. 25.8.
1091. Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac et al., Case No. IT-96-23-T & IT-96-23/1-T, Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000, para. 19.
1092. Trial Judgement, para. 607.
1093. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 143.
1094. Trial Judgement, para. 608.
1095. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 121.
1096. Ibid., paras 121-124.
1097. Prosecution’s Respondent’s Brief, paras 7.26 and 7.17.
1098. Zigic Final Trial Brief, paras 123.10 -124.5.
1099. Trial Judgement, para. 606.
1100. Fadil Avdagic, T. 3487.
1101. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 89 -95.
1102. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 7.24-7.25, referring to Azedin Oklopcic, T. 1879.
1103. Azedin Oklopcic, T. 1736-1740.
1104. Ibid., T. 1879.
1105. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 97 -98.
1106. Prosecution’s Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.34-7.37.
1107. Zigic Reply Brief, paras 25.5-25.6.
1108. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 97.
1109. Ibid., para. 133.
1110. Prosecution’s Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.27.
1111. Abdulah Brkic, T. 4631-4632. Trial Judgement para. 604.
1112. Witness T, T. 2738-2739 (closed session).
1113. Trial Judgement para. 603.
1114. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 99.
1115. Ibid., paras 138-140.
1116. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.33.
1117. Witness DD/5, T. 9961.
1118. Ibid., T. 9994.
1119. Witness DD/10, T. 10664 (private session).
1120. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 145.
1121. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 39.
1122. AT. 571-572.
1123. AT. 576.
1124. AT. 593-595.
1125. AT. 631-639.
1126. AT. 643.
1127. AT. 667.
1128. AT. 671-681.
1129. AT. 706-707.
1130. AT. 707-711.
1131. AT. 714-716.
1132. Trial Judgement, paras 601- 603.
1133. Fadil Avdagic, T. 3442.
1134. The beating took place in the corridor of the “white house”: Witness KV2, AT. 593; Witness KV3, AT. 637; Witness KV4, AT. 680. Sadeta Medunjanin was present: Witness KV2, AT. 612; Witness KV3, AT. 643; Witness KV4, AT. 678. They saw Becir Medunjanin lying on the floor when they were ordered to leave the building: Witness KV2, AT. 572; Witness KV3, AT. 639; Witness KV4, AT. 680.
1135. Witness KV3, AT. 635.
1136. AT. 680, 711.
1137. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 108.
1138. Ibid.. Also, para. 110.
1139. Ibid., paras 110-117.
1140. Ibid., paras 130-135.
1141. Ibid., para. 98.
1142. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.43.
1143. Ibid., para. 7.45.
1144. See above, para. 480.
1145. T. 2751-2754.
1146. Witness T, T. 2767 (closed session).
1147. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 132.
1148. Abdulah Brkic, T. 4528-4530.
1149. T. 4535.
1150. Cf. Rule 90 (H) (i).
1151. T. 4623-4624.
1152. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 279 -280.
1153. Ibid., para. 280.
1154. Zigic Additional Document, para. 34.
1155. Ibid., paras 18-20.
1156. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 147 -150.
1157. Ibid., para. 160.
1158. Ibid., para. 162.
1159. Ibid., para. 164.
1160. Ibid., para. 163.
1161. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.54-7.56.
1162. Dr. Mirko Barudžija, T. 10966 -10967.
1163. Ibid., T. 10972.
1164. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 151.
1165. Prosecution’s Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.69.
1166. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 158-176.
1167. Witness AE, T. 4285.
1168. For the issue of courtroom identification, see above, paras 473-474.
1169. Ervin Ramic, T. 5621.
1170. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 170.
1171. Hase Icic, T. 4642.
1172. Witness AE, T. 4312.
1173. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 154-157.
1174. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 7.67, 7.59-7.62.
1175. Ibid., paras 7.63-7. 68.
1176. Ibid., para. 7.73. It also refers to its responses both to ground 46 and to similar arguments in relation to the murder of Medunjanin.
1177. Dr Mirko Barudžija, T. 10970.
1178. Witness DD/2, T. 9677-9678.
1179. Witness DD/5, T. 9969.
1180. Jugoslav Gnjatovic, T. 10326.
1181. Witness DD/9, T. 10417.
1182. Witness DD/6, T. 9847-9850.
1183. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 150.
1184. Ibid., para. 180.
1185. Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras 440-441.
1186. Trial Judgement, paras 617, 622.
1187. Zigic Additional Document, para. 20.
1188. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 187-188, 191-195.
1189. Ibid., paras 196-209.
1190. Ibid., para. 213.
1191. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 184.
1192. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.86.
1193. Ibid., para. 7.87.
1194. Trial Judgement, para. 623.
1195. Ervin Ramic, T. 5618-5619.
1196. This was supported by Abdulah Brkic, who noted that Zigic beat Jusufagic “many times”: T. 4484.
1197. Trial Judgement, para. 631.
1198. Decision on Appellants’ Motions to Admit Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115, 16 February 2004.
1199. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 15, 216, 249.
1200. Ibid., paras 218, 219.
1201. Ibid., para. 220.
1202. Ibid., paras 247, 249.
1203. Ibid., para. 228.
1204. Ibid., paras 229-248, especially paras 229, 239, 242.
1205. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 7.104-7.114, especially para. 7.113.
1206. Ibid., para. 7.115.
1207. Ibid., para. 7.118.
1208. Trial Judgement, paras 631- 632.
1209. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 219.
1210. The fact that Drago Tokmadzic was killed is not disputed by Zigic; he denies only his participation in the crime.
1211. Edin Ganic, T. 5904.
1212. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 247.
1213. Witness Y, T. 3609.
1214. Edin Ganic, T. 5906.
1215. Dr. Dusanka Andjelkovic, T. 10280.
1216. The witness himself never mentioned a date: T. 3606.
1217. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 233.
1218. Ibid., para. 245.
1219. Ibid., para. 246.
1220. Ibid., para. 220.
1221. Edin Ganic, T. 5909.
1222. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 250 -251.
1223. AT. 125.
1224. AT. 127-131.
1225. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 222.
1226. Trial Judgement, para. 633.
1227. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 188; Furundžija Appeal Judgement, para. 119; Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 95.
1228. Trial Judgement, para. 284.
1229. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 196; Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 102.
1230. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 250.
1231. Ibid., para. 252 - 253.
1232. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.130.
1233. Trial Judgement, para. 691.
1234. See paras 452-466.
1235. Trial Judgement, para. 593.
1236. Ibid., para. 691.
1237. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 274 -276.
1238. Ibid., para. 278.
1239. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.141.
1240. Ibid., paras 7.142-7.143.
1241. Ibid., para. 7.139.
1242. Ibid., para. 7.148.
1243. Abdulah Brkic, T. 4491.
1244. Trial Judgement, paras 585- 593.
1245. Ibid., para. 691.
1246. Ibid.
1247. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 283.
1248. Zigic Additional Document, para. 35 (ground of appeal no 24).
1249. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 314.
1250. Ibid., para. 311.
1251. Ibid., para. 316.
1252. Ibid., para. 318.
1253. Trial Judgement, para. 639.
1254. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 321, 325.
1255. Ibid., para. 324.
1256. Ibid., para. 327.
1257. Witness DD/9, T. 10426.
1258. Trial Judgement, para. 642.
1259. Ibid., para. 645.
1260. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 330, 332.
1261. Ibid., paras 331, 333.
1262. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.195.
1263. Ibid., para. 7.198.
1264. Trial Judgement, paras 643- 644.
1265. See above, para. 473.
1266. Witness AE, T. 4280-4281.
1267. Trial Judgement, para. 646.
1268. Ibid., para. 649.
1269. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 336.
1270. Ibid., para. 335.
1271. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.209, having looked at the evidence before the Trial Chamber in paras 7.203-7.208.
1272. Ibid., para. 7.210.
1273. Witness N, T. 3897-3898.
1274. Also in his cross-examination, only one beating of Jasmin Ramadanovic (nicknamed “Sengin”) is mentioned: T. 3913.
1275. Trial Judgement, para. 647.
1276. Ibid., paras 681, 692.
1277. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 343 -345.
1278. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.216.
1279. Ibid., para. 7.219.
1280. Ibid., para. 7.225.
1281. Witness AD, T. 3838.
1282. Witness N, T. 3900.
1283. Witness V, T. 3714.
1284. Safet Taci, T. 3772.
1285. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 350.
1286. Safet Taci, T. 3779.
1287. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 357 -358.
1288. Trial Judgement, para. 690.
1289. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 367.
1290. Ibid., para. 368, referring to his discussion in paragraphs 229-249 of his brief where he discussed the killing of Tokmadzic.
1291. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.241.
1292. Ibid., paras 7.242-7.244.
1293. Zigic Reply Brief, para. 41.
1294. Ibid., para. 41.2.
1295. Zigic Additional Document, paras 24 and 48. Both refer to Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 229-249.
1296. Edin Ganic, T. 5904-5914.
1297. Husein Ganic, T. 5763-5765.
1298. Ibid., T. 5769-5771.
1299. Trial Judgement, paras 661- 662.
1300. Edin Ganic, T. 5911; Husein Ganic, T. 5769.
1301. Edin Ganic. T. 5907; Husein Ganic, T. 5763.
1302. Edin Ganic, T. 5912; Husein Ganic, T. 5763.
1303. Edin Ganic, T. 5914; Husein Ganic, T. 5770.
1304. Husein Ganic, T. 5766, 5770 ; Edin Ganic, T. 5912.
1305. The Appeals Chamber understands Zigic refers in para. 381 of his Appeal Brief to the same document mentioned T. 5792, although this document is said to consist of 45 pages, in contrast to the 37 pages of the document referred to in the Appeal Brief.
1306. Husein Ganic, T. 5778, 5795.
1307. Zigic Reply Brief, para. 41.2: Hajra Hadjic and Safeta Medunjanin.
1308. Witness K mentioned, in addition to Hajra Hadzic, Mina Ceric (T. 5023); Kerim Mesanovic one “Jadranka” (T. 5229).
1309. Trial Judgement, para. 691.
1310. Grounds of appeal 1 and 2 (with respect to murder), Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 83; ground of appeal 18 (with respect to torture), Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 264.
1311. Ground of appeal 42, Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 408.
1312. Ground of appeal 3 (with respect to murder), Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 85; ground of appeal 19 (with respect to torture ), Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 265.
1313. Ground of appeal 42, Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 405.
1314. Ground of appeal 45, Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 64.
1315. Trial Judgement, paras 585, 597.
1316. Ibid., paras 599-609.
1317. Ibid., para. 610.
1318. Ibid., para. 584, footnote 929.
1319. Ervin Ramic, T. 5624.
1320. Azedin Oklopcic, T. 1901.
1321. Ibid., T. 1677, 1692.
1322. Ibid., T. 1765.
1323. The first detainees arrived around the 27th of May; the camp was closed down late in August 1992: Trial Judgement, paras 17-18.
1324. Azedin Oklopcic, T. 1740-1742.
1325. Trial Judgement, para. 708.
1326. See above, para. 97.
1327. Trial Judgement, para. 92.
1328. Ibid., para. 117.
1329. Ibid., para. 116.
1330. This ground will be discussed in Chapter VII, see paras 717-725.
1331. Trial Judgement, para. 452.
1332. Ibid., paras 436, 437 and 444.
1333. Ibid., para. 437.
1334. Ibid., footnote 194.
1335. Ibid., para. 493.
1336. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 435, 444, 452 and 454.
1337. Ibid., paragraphs 445 and 537.
1338. Ibid., paragraphs 534 and 538.
1339. Ibid., paragraphs 86 and 94.
1340. Ibid., paras. 63, 93, 542 and 665.
1341. Ibid., para. 444, footnote 740.
1342. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 428 and 436.
1343. Ibid., paragraphs 483 (a), 530, 585-6, 588-9, 593 and 597-8.
1344. Ibid., para. 445.
1345. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 435, 437 and 454.
1346. Ibid., para. 74.
1347. Ibid., para. 493, footnote 809.
1348. Ibid., para. 436.
1349. Ibid., para. 444, footnote 740.
1350. Ibid., paragraphs 14, 74 and 82.
1351. Ibid., para. 436
1352. Ibid., para. 444, footnote 740.
1353. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 60, 66, 72, 78, 79, 86 and 88.
1354. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 49, 94-6 and 529.
1355. Ibid., paragraphs 599 -609.
1356. Ibid., para. 444, footnote 740.
1357. Ibid., para. 493.
1358. Ibid., para. 445.
1359. Ibid., paragraphs 445 and 537.
1360. Ibid., paragraphs 534 and 538.
1361. Ibid., paras. 63, 93, 542 and 665.
1362. Ibid., paragraphs 483 (a), 530, 585-6, 588-9, 593 and 597-8.
1363. Ibid., paragraphs 3, 14 and 56.
1364. Ibid., para. 436.
1365. Ibid., paragraphs 599 -609.
1366. Ibid., para. 60.
1367. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 435, 444, 452 and 454.
1368. Ibid., paragraphs or respective footnotes of paras 428 and 436.
1369. Ibid., paragraphs 445 and 537.
1370. Ibid., paragraphs 445 and 537.
1371. Ibid., paragraphs 445 and 537.
1372. Ibid., para. 535 and footnote 868.
1373. Ibid., paragraphs 598, 685, 691(d) and 692.
1374. Ibid., para. 493.
1375. Ibid., paragraphs 597 -8, 685 and 691(c).
1376. Trial Judgement, paragraphs 609 and 691(c).
1377. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 13 -14.
1378. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 8.13-8.14.
1379. Ibid., para. 8.15.
1380. Ibid., para. 8.16.
1381. See above, paras 16 and 18.
1382. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 11.
1383. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.6.
1384. Ibid., para. 8.6.
1385. Ibid., paras 8.7-8.8.
1386. Decision on Defence Motions for Acquittal, para. 62.
1387. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 12 a-k.
1388. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 8.10-8.11.
1389. Trial Judgement, para. 468.
1390. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 40.
1391. Ibid., para. 26.
1392. Ibid., para. 53.
1393. Ibid., para. 35.
1394. Ibid., para. 34. Following this argument, Prcac submits that the “Trial Chamber should have either ordered the Prosecution to amend the Indictment, or the Trial Chamber itself should have ordered presentation of relevant evidence in order to establish facts which would in a clear and unambiguous manner determine the existence of a new function of the accused, its place in the organization of the camp, and competences which such a function covered” (para. 90).
1395. Ibid., para. 150.
1396. Ibid., para. 151.
1397. Ibid., paras 159-160. Prcac submits that the following were not established: 1) the duties of an administrative assistant; 2) how significantly the duties contributed to the proper functioning of the camp; 3) whether the post of administrative deputy existed in the Omarska camp; and 4) Prcac’s real function and competences.
1398. Ibid., paras 162, 163.
1399. Prcac Reply Brief, paras 35 -36.
1400. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.16.
1401. Ibid., para. 4.19.
1402. Ibid., para. 4.20.
1403. Trial Judgement, paras 432- 433. The reference in the Trial Judgement to Prcac’s Pre-Trial Brief, paras 8, 9 and 16 is not helpful, as these paragraphs did not touch on whether Prcac should be deemed an administrative aide. But para. 26 of the Pre-Trial Brief has some description of his duties at the camp.
1404. For instance, cross-examination of Zlata Cikota, T. 3384-3397; of Nusret Sivac, T. 4119-4126.
1405. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 18.
1406. Ibid., para. 22.
1407. Ibid., para. 20.
1408. Ibid., para. 21.
1409. Ibid., paras 23, 25.
1410. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.29.
1411. Ibid., para. 4.29.
1412. Ibid., para. 4.30.
1413. Ibid., para. 4.28.
1414. Ibid., paras 37 and 40.
1415. Indictment, paras 20 and 29.
1416. Trial Judgement, para. 439.
1417. Ibid., para. 467.
1418. Ibid., para. 469. See also para. 468.
1419. Ibid., para. 438.
1420. Ibid., paras 432-433.
1421. Para. 355.
1422. Cf. above, para. 101.
1423. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 80.
1424. Ibid., para. 81.
1425. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.30.
1426. Prcac Reply Brief, paras 40 -41.
1427. Trial Judgement, paras 435- 437.
1428. See above, para. 621.
1429. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 170 -175. See also Prcac Reply Brief, para. 11.
1430. Ibid., paras 337-342.
1431. Ibid., paras 224-225 and 227.
1432. Ibid., paras 225, 226, 234 and 236.
1433. Ibid., paras 235 and 237.
1434. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 8.50-8.53.
1435. Trial Judgement, para. 432 (footnote omitted).
1436. Ibid., para. 432, referring to Prcac’s Pre-Trial Brief, paras 8, 9, 16.
1437. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 230.
1438. Ibid., paras 251-263, referring to para. 435 of the Trial Judgement.
1439. Ibid., paras 253, 258 and 260-261.
1440. Ibid., para. 259.
1441. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.61-8.62.
1442. Trial Judgement, para. 435.
1443. Ibid., para. 435(c) referring to T. 5279-5283 (Omer Mesan).
1444. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 215 -222, referring to T. 5292 (Omer Mesan).
1445. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.34, referring to para. 435 of the Trial Judgement.
1446. Ibid., para. 8.36.
1447. Ibid., para. 8.40.
1448. Prcac Reply Brief, para. 46.
1449. Ibid., para. 50.
1450. Trial Judgement, footnote 707.
1451. Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac et al., Case No. IT-96-23-T& IT-96-23/1-T, Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 2 July 2000, para. 19; see also above, para. 473.
1452. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 264 -312.
1453. Ibid., paras 272-281.
1454. Ibid., paras 283-284.
1455. Ibid., para. 275.
1456. Ibid., para. 294.
1457. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.65.
1458. Ibid., para. 8.65.
1459. Ibid., para. 8.66, referring to para. 460 of the Trial Judgement.
1460. Prcac Reply Brief, paras 43 -44.
1461. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 239 and 241-246.
1462. Ibid., para. 246.
1463. Ibid., para. 248.
1464. Ibid., paras 8.55, 8.58.
1465. Ibid., para. 8.59, referring to para. 453 of the Trial Judgement.
1466. Trial Judgement, para. 433.
1467. Ibid., para. 434.
1468. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 298 -306.
1469. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 8.67-8.68.
1470. Trial Judgement, para. 427( footnotes omitted).
1471. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 176 -214.
1472. Ibid., paras 178-180, 205-208, 210 and 212.
1473. Ibid., paras 182, 192.
1474. Ibid., paras 201-204, referring to T. 11365 (Ljubisa Prcac) and 11560-11561 (Obrad Popovic), para. 3 of Prcac Pre-Trial Brief, and paras 43, 44 and 152 of the Defence Opening Statement. It is noted that Prcac did not file his opening statement, and that his opening statement was made in court: starting at T. 11318 (8 May 2001).
1475. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 8.22-8.23.
1476. Ibid., paras 8.23-8. 24.
1477. Trial Judgement, para. 563.
1478. Ibid., para. 438.
1479. Ibid., para. 461.
1480. Ibid., paras 322-5, referring to T. 3997(Nusret Sivac).
1481. Ibid., paras 321-323 and 326-329.
1482. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 8.69-8.71.
1483. Ibid., para. 8.72.
1484. Trial Judgement, para. 29.
1485. Ibid., para. 461.
1486. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 451.
1487. Ibid., para. 452.
1488. Ibid., para. 453.
1489. Ibid., paras 459-469.
1490. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.103.
1491. Ibid., para. 8.105.
1492. Ibid., para. 8.107.
1493. Ibid., para. 8.112.
1494. Ibid., paras 8.110-8.111.
1495. Prcac Reply Brief, para. 52.
1496. With respect to the specific case of Prcac, see e.g. Trial Judgement, paras 445, 454.
1497. Trial Judgement, para. 436.
1498. T. 1879-1880.
1499. T. 1879.
1500. T. 1879.
1501. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 471.
1502. Ibid., para. 467.
1503. Ibid., paras 479-482.
1504. Ibid., paras 478-481.
1505. Ibid., paras 485-490.
1506. Ibid., paras 491-506.
1507. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.119.
1508. Ibid., para. 8.117.
1509. Ibid., para. 8.120.
1510. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 495 and 498.
1511. Ibid., para. 502.
1512. Ibid., para. 515.
1513. Ibid., para. 512.
1514. Ibid., paras 516-521.
1515. Ibid., para. 525.
1516. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.122.
1517. See above, para. 22.
1518. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 554.
1519. Prosecution’ Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.126.
1520. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 530, 531.
1521. See above, paras 615 -618.
1522. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 537.
1523. Ibid., para. 535.
1524. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 537 -540.
1525. Ibid., paras 547-548.
1526. Ibid., para. 545.
1527. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.130.
1528. Ibid., para. 8.131.
1529. Ibid., para. 8.133.
1530. Ibid., para. 8.134.
1531. Ibid., para. 8.135.
1532. Ibid., paras 8.137-8.138.
1533. Ibid., para. 8.143.
1534. Ibid., paras 8.144-8.150.
1535. See Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal, 10 October 2000.
1536. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 551 - 553.
1537. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.152.
1538. Ibid., para. 8.155.
1539. Trial Judgement, para. 783.
1540. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.156.
1541. T. 12003-12006.
1542. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 716; Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 241; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 678.
1543. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 780; Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 241.
1544. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 715; Furund‘ija Appeal Judgement, para. 238; Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 242.
1545. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 679 (footnotes omitted).
1546. Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 242; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 680.
1547. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 64; Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 793.
1548. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 408.
1549. Tadic Judgement in Sentencing Appeals, para. 22; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 187; Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 725; Jelisic Appeal Judgement, para. 99; Krsti c Appeal Judgement, para. 242.
1550. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 725; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 680.
1551. Kvocka Appeal Brief, paras 167-170, 173-174, 179-181.
1552. Ibid., para. 170.
1553. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 115.
1554. See above, paras 120 -347.
1555. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 175; Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 110.
1556. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 178.
1557. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 116.
1558. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 9.6.
1559. Trial Judgement, para. 697.
1560. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 790.
1561. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 414.
1562. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 777; Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 430; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 685.
1563. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 114.
1564. Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 178.
1565. Ibid., para. 94.
1566. Trial Judgement, para. 716.
1567. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 114.
1568. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 458.
1569. Trial Judgement, para. 716.
1570. Cf. Erdemovic Sentencing Judgement II, para. 16(i).
1571. Jokic Sentencing Judgement, paras 61-62.
1572. Trial Judgement, para. 350; Kvocka Appeal Brief, para. 94.
1573. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 9.9.
1574. Trial Judgement, para. 715.
1575. Kvocka Reply Brief, para. 113.
1576. Kvocka Reply Brief, footnote 56.
1577. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 721.
1578. Jelisic Appeal Judgement, para. 96.
1579. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 719. See also Furund‘ija Appeal Judgement, para. 250.
1580. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 721.
1581. Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 248.
1582. Aleksovski Trial Judgement, para. 242; Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras 717, 821; Krnojelac Trial Judgement, para. 507. See also Jelisic Appeal Judgement, para. 101.
1583. Aleksovski, Appeal Judgement, para. 190.
1584. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 853.
1585. Celebici Sentencing Judgement, para. 44.
1586. Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 264.
1587. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 340.
1588. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 9.45.
1589. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 338.
1590. Trial Judgement, para. 740.
1591. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 337.
1592. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 9.40.
1593. Ibid., para. 9.39.
1594. Trial Judgement, para. 741.
1595. Witness AN, T. 4407-4408; Omer Mesan, T. 5328.
1596. Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 255.
1597. Radic Appeal Brief, paras 323 -325.
1598. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 9.35.
1599. Ibid.
1600. Trial Judgement, para. 707 (emphasis added).
1601. Radic Appeal Brief, paras 332 -335, 342-343.
1602. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 9.42-9.44.
1603. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 335.
1604. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 777; Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 430.
1605. Trial Judgement, para. 739.
1606. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 776 citing Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 781.
1607. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 329.
1608. Ibid., paras 352-353.
1609. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, paras 9.48-9.49.
1610. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 356. Delic’s sentence was subsequently reduced to 18 years: Celebici Sentencing Judgement, para. 44.
1611. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 357. Furund‘ija was also sentenced to 10 years for torture as a violation of the laws or customs of war: Furund‘ija Trial Judgement, Disposition.
1612. Radic Appeal Brief, para. 358.
1613. Ibid., para. 348.
1614. Ibid., paras 349-350, 355.
1615. Ibid., para. 347.
1616. Ibid., para. 359.
1617. Ibid., paras 330, 354, 359.
1618. Ibid., paras 352, 359.
1619. See above, paras 681 -682.
1620. Erdemovic Sentencing Judgement II, para. 17.
1621. Todorovic Sentencing Judgement, para. 4; Sikirica et al. Sentencing Judgement, paras 12, 14.
1622. Radic Appeal Brief, paras 352 -353.
1623. Trial Judgement, para. 740.
1624. Ibid., para. 741.
1625. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 686. See also Celebici Trial Judgement, para. 1264: “The most disturbing, serious and thus, an aggravating aspect of these acts, is that Mr. Deli c apparently enjoyed using this device upon his helpless victims” (upheld on appeal, Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 825); Kayishema and Ruzindana Appeal Judgement, para. 351.
1626. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 421, referring to Trial Judgement, para. 746.
1627. Trial Judgement, paras 712 (Kvocka), 719 (Prcac), 727(Kos), 736 (Radic).
1628. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 426.
1629. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 9.57.
1630. Trial Judgement, para. 650.
1631. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 425.
1632. Ibid., paras 412-413.
1633. Ibid., para. 416.
1634. Ibid., para. 418.
1635. Ibid., para. 419.
1636. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 9.60.
1637. Ibid., para. 9.61.
1638. Ibid.
1639. Trial Judgement, para. 697.
1640. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 430.
1641. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 412.
1642. Trial Judgement, paras 677- 681.
1643. Simic Sentencing Judgement, para. 74; Todorovic Sentencing Judgement, para. 94, footnote 98.
1644. Trial Judgement, para. 706.
1645. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 419.
1646. Trial Judgement, para. 616.
1647. Zigic Appeal Brief, para. 422.
1648. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 9.63.
1649. Kunarac et al. Trial Judgement, para. 868; Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 430; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 702.
1650. Trial Judgement, para. 746.
1651. See e.g., Fourth Annual Report of the Tribunal, U.N. Doc. A/52/375-S/1997/729, covering the period 1 August 1996 to 31 July 1997, para. 184: “there are the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska – and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that have done little or nothing to cooperate with the Tribunal – they have neither enacted legislation nor arrested any indictees. Indeed Republika Srpska and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia do not admit their duty to arrest and deliver accused persons to The Hague. They flatly deny all cooperation in delivering indictees.” This should be compared with the Fifth Annual Report of the Tribunal, U.N. Doc. A/53/219-S/1998/737, covering the period 1 August 1997 to 27 July 1998, para. 216: “following the political changes in Republika Srpska and the appointment of a new Prime Minister, the authorities of that entity have shown a willingness to cooperate with the Tribunal. Prime Minister Dodik has urged indicted individuals to surrender to the Tribunal, while law enforcement agencies within the entity have assisted the Prosecutor in carrying out her work.”
1652. Simic Sentencing Judgement, para. 107.
1653. Simic voluntarily surrendered to the Tribunal on 14 February 1998 (Simic Sentencing Judgement, para. 2); Zigic was transferred to the Tribunal on 16 April 1998 (Trial Judgement, para. 749 ).
1654. Trial Judgement, para. 746.
1655. Zigic Appeal Brief, paras 428, 429.
1656. Ibid.
1657. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 9.62.
1658. Ibid.
1659. Zigic Brief in Reply, para. 50.
1660. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 705; Erdemovic Sentencing Judgement II, para. 16(iii); Todorovi c Sentencing Judgement, para. 89; Simic Sentencing Judgement, para. 92 ; Obrenovic Sentencing Judgement, para. 121.
1661. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 780.
1662. Ibid., para. 777; Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 430.
1663. Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 258 (in the context of aggravating factors).
1664. Trial Judgement, para. 618.
1665. Ibid., para. 594.
1666. See above, para. 711.
1667. Cf. Trial Judgement, paras 689-692, 747-748.
1668. Trial Judgement, para. 747.
1669. Prcac Appeal Brief, paras 561 -564.
1670. See above, paras 601 -667.
1671. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 562.
1672. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 9.22-9.23.
1673. Trial Judgement, para. 724.
1674. Prcac Appeal Brief, para. 563.
1675. Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, para. 9.27.
1676. Ibid., para. 9.28.
1677. Ibid., para. 9.29.
1678. Ibid., para. 9.30.
1679. Emphasis added.
1680. Jelisic Appeal Judgement, para. 121.
1681. Trial Judgement, para. 722.
1682. Ibid., para. 697.
1683. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 430.
1684. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weinberg de Roca (“Partially Dissenting Opinion in the Blaskic Appeal”).
1685. Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, Separate Opinion of Judge Weinberg de Roca (“Separate Opinion in the Kordic and Cerkez Appeal”).
1686. Judgement, para. 426.
1687. Judgement, para. 428:
Therefore, the Appeals Chamber will uphold a conviction on the basis that a reasonable trier of fact could have arrived at a conviction on the evidence on the trial record in two cases:
(i) if there is no additional evidence admitted;
(ii) if additional evidence is admitted, but upon further review is found to be not credible or irrelevant, so that it could not have been a decisive factor in reaching the decision at trial.[Footnote omitted]
Paragraph 428(ii) thus suggests a more deferential approach to the Trial Chamber’s findings of fact than the approach outlined at para. 24(c)(ii) of the Blaskic Appeal Judgement and apparently endorsed at para. 426 of the present Judgement.
1688. Judgement, paras. 494-499.
1689. At paragraph 426 of the present Judgement, the majority attempts to show that there is no contradiction between the Blaskic Appeal Judgement and the Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement because “the Appeals Chamber in Kupreskic was not faced with the question of what test to apply where the outcome would be that in light of the trial evidence considered together with the additional evidence admitted on appeal, 'a reasonable trier of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Referring to Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 23]” However, this ignores the fact that, in the Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, the Appeals Chamber considered additional evidence adduced in support of Drago Josipovic’s appeal and found that (at para. 438) :
In the Appeals Chamber’s view, therefore, Josipovic has failed to established [sic] that no reasonable tribunal of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt based upon the evidence before the Trial Chamber together with the additional evidence admitted during the appellate proceedings.
The majority’s attempt at footnote Error! Bookmark not defined. of the present judgement to reconcile this with its explanation at paragraph 426 is unconvincing. The fact remains that, in Kupreskic, the Appeals Chamber considered whether, taking into account the evidence before the Trial Chamber and the additional evidence admitted on appeal, a reasonable trier of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt; the Appeals Chamber never said that it itself had to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. As explained below (see paras. 6-7), the majority also ignores that, in later cases, the Appeals Chamber understood the Kupreskic standard as a reasonable trier of fact standard. For these reasons and as eloquently explained by Judge Shahabuddeen in his separate opinion in the present case (paras. 16-45), the Blaskic standard is in conflict with the standard previously applied at the ICTY and at the ICTR.
1690. Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 40; Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, paras. 7-8; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, paras. 11-12; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, paras. 37-48, footnote 243; Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 434; Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 30; Furund‘ija Appeal Judgement, paras. 37, 40; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 63; Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 64.
1691. Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 75.
1692. Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 63.
1693. Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, para. 473 (footnotes omitted). See also Musema Appeal Judgement, paras. 185-186.
1694. Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 107.
1695. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 24(c)(ii).
1696. Judgement, para. 17, referring to Blaskic Appeal Judgement (para. 15) and the Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement (para. 17).
1697. Separate Opinion in the Kordic and Cerkez Appeal, para. 3.
1698. Judgement, para. 17.
1699. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 13. See also Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 21.
1700. Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, footnote 12.
1701. Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 21.
1702. Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 387.
1703. See my Partially Dissenting Opinion in the Blaskic Appeal, paras. 10-14, and my Separate Opinion in the Kordic and Cerkez Appeal, paras. 5-10.
1704. As to whether that view was applied to the facts of this case, see paras. 426, 428, 496 and 554 of the judgement of the Appeals Chamber.
1705. IT-95-14-A, of 29 July 2004, para. 24(c), later referred to as “Blaskic” Except on one point, which was without practical effect (see the President’s order of 29 July 2004 granting early release with effect from 2 August 2004), the verdict of the Trial Chamber, which was rendered on 3 March 2000 (IT-95-14-T), was reversed on appeal. The writer considers it proper to declare that he was a member of the Trial Chamber. The other members of the Trial Chamber were Judge Claude Jorda, presiding, and Judge Almiro Rodrigues.
1706. Additional evidence is not referred to in the Statute. Evidence of a new fact is referred to both in the Statute and in the Rules.
1707. Blaskic, IT-95-14-T, Decision on the Standing Objection of the Defence to the Admission of Hearsay with no Inquiry as to its Reliability, of 21 January 1998, para. 5.
1708. IT-95-16-A, of 23 October 2001, later referred to as “Kupreskic.”
1709. ICTR-96-13-A, of 16 November 2001, paras. 185-186, 193-194.
1710. ICTR-96-3-A, of 26 May 2003, para. 473.
1711. Emphasis as in the original.
1712. Blaskic, “Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weinberg de Roca”.
1713. In its footnote number Error ! Bookmark not defined. to paragraph 24(c)(i) of Blaskic (as set out in paragraph 426 of today’s judgement), the Appeals Chamber argues that, although that provision spoke – expressly, I would think – of the Appeals Chamber determining “on the basis of the trial record alone, whether no reasonable trier of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt”, those words are to be “obviously considered” as contemplating that “such a determination is also reached on the basis of the trial record taken together with the evidence admitted on appeal …”. The Appeals Chamber’s appeal to “the entire context ” is in order, but the context can produce a different result from that for which the Appeals Chamber argues. Paragraph 19 of Blaskic stated “that there are no reasons to depart from the standard set out” in Kupreskic; it also added that that “standard shall be applied where appropriate in the present Judgement.” These statements occurred in a passage which referred to cases in which “no additional evidence has been admitted on appeal”. Paragraph 22 drew attention to certain alleged shortcomings of that standard in cases in which “additional evidence has been admitted on appeal”. Accordingly, paragraph 24 then stated that in “the light of the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber sets out the following summary concerning the standard of review to be applied on appeal…”. Though referred to as a “summary”, the “summary ” was an ample one intentionally designed as a comprehensive restatement of the whole position; for ease of consultation, it is reproduced above. It happens that paragraph 24(c)(i) of the “summary” nowhere speaks of a determination being “also reached on the basis of the trial record taken together with the evidence admitted on appeal”; that wider meaning contradicts the express limitation in the provision to “the trial record alone” and cannot be fairly implied. Paragraph 24 (d)(i) continues the exclusive reference to “the trial record”. Argument for the wider meaning is attractive, but not convincing.
1714. The judges in the Kupreskic Appeals Chamber were Judge Wald, presiding, and Judges Vohrah, Nieto-Navia, Pocar and Liu Daqun; those in the Blaskic Appeals Chamber were Judge Pocar, presiding, and Judges Mumba, Güney, Schomburg and Weinberg de Roca. No member of the Blaskic Trial Chamber sat on the bench of the Appeals Chamber in Kupreskic.
1715. Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski , IT-95-14/1-A, of 24 March 2000, para. 111.
1716. Ibid., para. 108.
1717. Emphasis added.
1718. To avoid possible misunderstanding, it should be pointed out that the reference to “an error in the legal standard ” was not intended to mean that the Blaskic Appeals Chamber considered that the Blaskic Trial Chamber adopted the wrong standard of proof, say, proof on a balance of probabilities. The Trial Chamber referred to, and adopted, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in paras. 410, 425, 590, 592, 678, 715, 720, 733, 743 and 750 of its judgement in IT-95-14-T, of 3 March 2000. It gave the benefit of the doubt to the accused in paragraphs 678 and 715.
1719. In Haddy (1944) 29 Cr.App. R. 182 at 191, C.C.A., the appellate court said: “In this case we are satisfied that no reasonable jury properly directed throughout would, or could, have come to any other conclusion, and that no miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.” In Sheldon [1996] 2 Cr. App. R. 50 at 54, the appellate court said: “The jury, had they been directed on the issue, must inevitably have reached that same conclusion.”
1720. See “Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weinberg de Roca” in Blaskic.
1721. Emphasis added.
1722. Emphasis added.
1723. Blaskic, “Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weinberg de Roca”, paras. 2 and 4.
1724. Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski , IT-95-14/1-A, of 24 March 2000, paras. 108 and 109, respectively.
1725. See para. 19 of Blaskic, supra.
1726. Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 23.
1727. Kupreskic., para.348.
1728. Ibid., p. 170, reading, “DISMISSES all other grounds of appeal raised by Drago Josipovic’s (sic( against his conviction.”
1729. Ibid., p. 170.
1730. The fact that a court decides on an alternative ground does not necessarily mean that its remarks on the alternative ground are obiter; a decision could be well supported by more than one ratio. See Rupert Cross and J. W. Harris, Precedent in English Law, 4th ed. (Oxford, 1991), pp. 81ff, and Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, ICJ Reports 1980, p. 125, separate opinion of Judge Mosler, stating that it was the duty of a court to define the legal position “in its essential reasoning, even if some of that reasoning contains alternatives each of which, even if incompatible with others, forms part of a logical concatenation that leads to common conclusions”. Additionally, this being an international court, the question in any case is whether the point in issue was judicially considered and judicially pronounced upon. Paragraph 347 of Kupreskic opened with the words, “Even if Witness AT were a reliable witness…”. On the basis that he was reliable, the Appeals Chamber considered the matter, speaking of the “safety” of Josipovi c’s conviction and of his assertion that the “Witness AT’s evidence casts doubt on the Trial Chamber’s finding”, and then concluding, in paragraph 348, with a pronouncement of the Appeals Chamber’s finding expressed in the words quoted above.
1731. Emphasis added.
1732. ICTR-96-13-A, of 16 November 2001.
1733. Ibid., para. 185.
1734. ICTR-96-3-A, of 26 May 2003.
1735. Ibid., para. 489.
1736. Ibid., para. 473 (emphasis as in the original).
1737. See mainly Kupreskic and Musema Appeal Judgements.
1738. Musema Appeal Judgement, paras. 185 and 186; Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, paras.75 and 76.
1739. Sometimes the literature may be interpreted to mean that it is only possible to speak of an “appeal” where there is a rehearing. The term is used in this opinion to include review.
1740. For the distinction, see inter alia R. v. McIlkenny [1991] LRC (Crim) 196 at 206, mentioned below, and, a civil case, Audergon v. La Baguette Ltd, [2002] EWCA Civ 10. See also, and compare, Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th ed., Vol. 37, para. 696; Charles Platto (ed.), Civil Appeal Procedures Worldwide (London, 1992), article by Julian M. Wilson and others, pp. 143-144; and Civil Procedure, Vol. 1 (London, 2004), p. 1447, Order 52.11.1.
1741. As in the German system of Berufung, which involves a trial de novo. It applies in relation to the district court, whose sentencing power is limited to imprisonment for four years.
1742. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Sabapathee [1997] 2 LRC 221, PC, at 226.
1743. Sokomanu v. Public Prosecutor [1989] LRC (Crim) 389 at 404.
1744. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Sabapathee [1997] 2 LRC 221, PC, at 226.
1745. Mickelberg v. R. [1990] LRC (Crim) 70.
1746. As illustrated by R. v. Wright, (1984) 3 O.A.C. 293 (C. A.). The power of the appeal court to order a de novo hearing “for any other reason” is construed restrictively. See Martin’s Annual Criminal Code 2005 (Aurora, 2005), p. CC/1496.
1747. R. v. McIlkenny [1991] LRC (Crim) 196 at 206. See also reference to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division ) being a “court of review” in R. v. Hanratty [2002] EWCA Crim 1141, para. 82. And see R. v. Maguire (1992) 94 Cr. App. R. 133 at 142, and R. v. Pendleton [2002] 1 All ER 524, HL, at para. 28 per Lord Bingham.
1748. See too Cross on Evidence , 6th Australian edition (Sydney, 2000), p. 314. It is, however, useful to note that Rule 52.11(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules of England and Wales reads: “Every appeal will be limited to a review of the decision of the lower court unless (a) a practice direction makes different provision for a particular category of appeal ; or (b) the court considers that in the circumstances of an individual appeal it would be in the interests of justice to hold a re-hearing”. It would therefore appear that, even in civil cases, the primary rule in the English jurisdiction is that an appeal is by way of review. This view finds support in Audergon v. La Baguette Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ. 10.
1749. R. v. Pendleton, [2002] 1 All ER 524, HL, para. 17.
1750. See Kupreskic, paras. 52-53, 61 and 346. See also Martinovic, IT-98-34-A, of 20 October 2004, 8th para., and Naletilic, IT-98-34-A, of 20 October 2004, para. 11.
1751. [2003] EWCA 1020, para. 126.
1752. R.v. Mills [2003] All ER (D) 221 (Jun), para. 63.
1753. Chidiac v. R. [1991] LRC (Crim) 360 at 375.
1754. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija , IT-95-17/1-A, of 21 July 2000, para. 40. And see Kupreskic, IT-95-16 -A, of 23 October 2001, paras. 22 and 408; Kunarac, IT-96-23, 12 June 2002, para. 36; Krnojelac, IT-97-25-A, of 17 September 2003, para. 5; Vasiljevic , IT-98-32-A, of 25 February 2004, para. 5; and Dragan Nikolic, IT-94 -2-A, of 4 February 2005, paras. 8 and 19.
1755. IT-95-16-A, of 23 October 2001, para. 408. See also the first sentence of paragraph 21 of Kordic, IT-95 -14/2-A, of 17 December 2004.
1756. Cf. Lumley v. Jamaica, 662/95; Rogerson v. Australia, 802/98; and Juma v. Australia, 984 /01, in Sarah Joseph and others, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 2004), at pp. 454-455
1757. Director of Public Prosecutions v. Sabapathee [1997] 2 LRC 221, PC, at 226.
1758. Patrick Devlin, The Judge (Oxford, 1979), p. 149. And see R. v. Pendleton (2002( 1 Cr. App. R. 34, HL, para.17 of Lord Bingham’s speech.
1759. Patrick Devlin, op. cit., p. 157.
1760. Ibid.
1761. Ibid., p. 154, italics added.
1762. Thus, in paragraph 19 of his leading speech in R. v. Pendleton [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 34, Lord Bingham said that the Court of Appeal should bear “very clearly in mind that the question for its consideration is whether the conviction is safe and not whether the accused is guilty.” See too R. v. Mills [2004] 1 Cr. App. R. 78, para. 58 of the judgment by Auld L.J.
1763. R. v. McIlkenny, [1991] LRC (Crim) 190 at 212.
1764. Condron v. United Kingdom [2000] (Appln. 35718/97) 31 EHRR 1; R. v. Togher [2001] 3 All ER 463; and R. v. Francom [2001] 1 Cr App R 237, in which, at para. 43, the court, said, “The test of unsafeness of a conviction applied by the Court of Appeal is not identical to the issue of unfairness before the ECHR …”. On the other hand, it may be argued that a verdict which is not fair is not safe.
1765. See Kupreskic, paras. 52-53, 61 and 346. See also, Martinovic, IT-98-34-A, Decision on Martinovic’s Request for Presentation of Additional Evidence, of 20 October 2004, 8th para., and Naletilic, IT-98-34-A, Decision on Naletilic’s Consolidated Motion to Present Additional Evidence, of 20 October 2004, para. 11.
1766. R. v Pendleton, supra, para. 19.
1767. R. v. McIlkenny, [1991] LRC (Crim)196 at 205; emphasis added.
1768. IT-95-14/2-A, of 17 December 2004, para. 17.
1769. IT-98-33-A, of 19 April 2004, paras. 73, 93, 94, 119, 120, 183, 184, 185 and 186.
1770. The State v. Sankar Sudama (1970) 16 WIR 475 at 484 E to F, per Luckhoo, C. And see Stolar v. Her Majesty the Queen, (1988) 52 Man. R (2d) 46 at 60.
1771. (1974) 58 Cr. App. R. 256.
1772. Prosecutor v. Kupreskic, IT-95-16-A, of 23 October 2001, para. 74, footnote 127, where Stafford’s case is mentioned.
1773. Stafford’s case, supra, per Lord Dilhorne at pp. 260-261, and per Lord Kilbrandon at p.289.
1774. (2002( 1 Cr. App. R. 34, para. 19.
1775. Emphases added.
1776. Gallagher v. The Queen (1985-1986( 160 C.L.R. 392 at 420, per Dawson J.
1777. Ibid., p. 397.
1778. This does not mean that, having later heard the live evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Appeals Chamber cannot reconsider questions of credibility.
1779. Gallagher v. The Queen, supra, p. 398.
1780. Ibid.
1781. Blaskic, para. 4.
1782. Ibid., para. 9.
1783. Ibid., para. 10.
1784. There was written evidentiary material in Kupreskic, although not as much as in Blaskic. As to oral evidentiary material, in the latter case six witnesses were examined in four days; in the former case three witnesses were examined in three days. See Blaskic , Annex A, para. 41, and Kupreskic, Annex A, para. 505.
1785. Blaskic, para. 6; and “Decision on Evidence” of the Appeals Chamber, IT-95-14-A, of 31 October 2003, p. 7. The last considerandum at p. 6 of the “Decision on Evidence” stated “that the decision whether to retain a case or to send it back for a re-trial lies within the discretion of the Appeals Chamber, in light of the circumstances of the case ; and that the interests of justice must be considered in such a decision.”
1786. (1974) 58 Cr. App. R. 256.
1787. Ibid., at p. 264.
1788. (2002( 1 Cr. App. R. 34, para. 19.
1789. (1985-1986( 160 C.L.R. 392 at 418.
1790. Ibid., pp. 419-420.
1791. Patrick Devlin, op. cit., p. 161.
1792. See Blaskic, para. 13, and Kordic, IT-95-14/2-A, of 17 December 2004, paras. 13 and 21.
1793. See the opening words of paras. 23 and 24(c)(ii) of Blaskic.
1794. “In a ‘fresh evidence’ case nothing has gone wrong in the conduct of the trial …”, per Viscount Dilhorne in Stafford v. Director of Public Prosecutions, (1974( A.C.878, H.L., at 894.
1795. See R. v. Hanratty ( 2002( 3 All ER 534, para. 79, stating: “With this background the onus must be squarely on the appellant to establish that the appeal should succeed”. See also Delalic , IT-96-21-A, of 20 February 2001, paras. 725 and 780, concerning an appeal on sentence.
1796. Maguire, (1992) 94 Cr. App. R. 133 at 142.
1797. (1936) 25 Cr. App. R. 190, C.C.A.
1798. Ibid., pp. 196-197.
1799. See R.E.Selhany, Canadian Criminal Procedure, 6th ed. (Ontario, 2004), para. 9.960; and R. v. Saleam (1989) 16 N.S.W.L.R. 14 at 21, per Hunt J.
1800. 443 U.S. 307 (1979), emphasis as in the original.
1801. Ibid., pp. 316ff; footnotes omitted; emphases as in the original.
1802. See generally R.v. Hakala (2002( EWCA Crim 730 (judgement of Judge L.J.), and R.v. Hanratty (2002 ( EWCA Crim 1141, para. 93.
1803. Blaskic, “Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weinberg de Roca”, para. 9.
1804. Ibid.
1805. “Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schomburg and Judge Güney on Cumulative Convictions”, para. 13, in Kordic , IT-95-14/2-A, of 17 December 2004. No view is offered here on the merits of the relevant holding in that case.
1806. Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvocka, Milojica Kos, Mlado Radic, Zoran Zigic, Dragoljub Prcac, Case No. IT-98-30 /1-T. Available in BCS on 15 April 2002.
1807. Order of the President Assigning Judges to a Bench of the Appeals Chamber, signed 4 December 2001, filed 13 December 2001.
1808. Order Designating a Pre-Appeal Judge, 30 January 2002.
1809. Order Replacing a Judge in a Case Before the Appeals Chamber, 17 March 2003.
1810. Order Assigning a Judge to a Case Before the Appeals Chamber, signed 17 June 2003, filed 18 June 2003.
1811. Order Assigning a Judge to a Case Before the Appeals Chamber, signed 11 July 2003, filed 14 July 2003.
1812. Order Designating a Pre-Appeal Judge, issued 16 July 2003.
1813. Order Replacing a Judge in a Case Before the Appeals Chamber, 18 February 2004.
1814. Decision on Appellant’s Second Request on Extension of Time, 11 April 2002.
1815. Kos’s Brief on Appeal, signed 1 April 2002, filed 2 April 2002.
1816. Kos’s Brief on Appeal Withdrawal, signed 14 May 2002, filed 21 May 2002.
1817. Order of the President for the Early Release of Milojica Kos, signed 30 July 2002, filed 1 August 2002.
1818. Radic Appeal Brief, 11 April 2002; Kvocka Appeal Brief, 11 April 2002.
1819. Prcac Appeal Brief, 12 April 2002.
1820. Zigic Appeal Brief (public with confidential annexes), 21 May 2002.
1821. Prosecution Motion Requesting Statement of Grounds of Appeal, 24 May 2004.
1822. IT/32/Rev. 21, 26 July 2001, Rule 108 and Rule 111.
1823. Decision on Prosecution Motion Requesting Order to Zoran Zigic to File Grounds of Appeal, 14 June 2002.
1824. Submission Pursuant to Order Given in Decision on Prosecution Motion Requesting Order to Zoran Zigic to file Grounds of Appeal Issued on 14 June 2002, 3 July 2002.
1825. Decision on Time-Limit for Prosecution Response Brief, 14 June 2002.
1826. Order of the Appeals Chamber on the Motion for Provisional Release by Miroslav Kvocka, issued 11 September 2002.
1827. Order of the President in Response to Miroslav Kvocka’s Request for Pardon, 7 August 2003.
1828. Appellant’s Amendment to Request for Provisional Release according to ‘Decision on request for separation of Miroslav Kvocka’s request for provisional release pending hearing of the Appeal’, 8 December 2003.
1829. Decision on the Request for Provisional Release of Miroslav Kvocka, 17 December 2003.
1830. Order varying the Provisional Release of Miroslav Kvocka and for his return to the Tribunal during the Appeal Hearing, 11 March 2004.
1831. Ibid.
1832. See for example: Order on Protective Measures, 4 March 2003; Order issued 12 November 2002; Decision on Momcilo Gruban’s Motion for Access to Material, 13 January 2003.
1833. Motion to Present Additional Evidence-Defense for the Accused Zoran Zigic filed confidentially on 23 August 2002 and Addendum thereto filed 13 June 2003. This motion was re-filed on 14 March 2003.
1834. Confidential Annex C to Decision on Appellants’ Motions to admit Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115, 16 February 2004.
1835. Decision granting extension of time and page limits, 30 August 2002.
1836. Prosecution’s Response to Zoran Zigic’s Motion to Present Additional Evidence, 9 September 2002.
1837. Decision on Zoran Zigic’s motion seeking leave to add paragraphs to his motion to present additional evidence, 3 October 2002.
1838. Zoran Zigic’s Second Motion to Present Additional Evidence, filed confidentially on 11 April 2003.
1839. Identified in Confidential Annex D to Decision on Appellants’ Motions to admit Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115, 16 February 2004.
1840. The murder of Becir Medunjanin ; the murder of Drago Tokmadzic; the alleged unfairness of the trial; and the finding that Zigic was engaged in a joint criminal enterprise with respect to the Omarska camp.
1841. Identified in Confidential Annex A to Decision on Appellants’ Motions to admit Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115, 16 February 2004.
1842. Confidential Annex B to Decision on Appellants’ Motions to admit Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115, 16 February 2004.
1843. Decision on Appellants’ Motions to admit Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115, 16 February 2004, p. 7.
1844. Ibid.
1845. Prosecution’s Motion to Adduce Rebuttal Evidence, filed confidentially on 27 February 2004.
1846. Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion to Adduce Rebuttal Material, 12 March 2004.
1847. Decision by the Registry to withdraw the assignment of Mr. Zarko Nikolic as counsel to Mr. Kos and to assign Ms Jelena Nikolic as lead counsel, 11 March 2002.
1848. Decision by the Registrar re : Withdrawal of the Assignment of mr. Stojanovic as Counsel for Mr. Zigic, 8 July 2002, at p. 3.
1849. Appeal Against the Decision by the Registrar of the Tribunal of 8 July 2002, filed 4 October 2002.
1850. Letter from Mr Stojanovic to the Registry, 23 October 2002.
1851. Decision on Review of Registrar’s Decision to Withdraw Legal Aid from Zoran Zigic, 7 February 2003.
1852. Decision on Zoran Zigic’s Request for Review of the Registrar’s Decision of 10 December 2003.
1853. Scheduling Order, issued 14 July 2004.
1854. Ibid.