Case: IT-97-24-A


Judge Theodor Meron, Presiding Judge
Judge Fausto Pocar
Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen"
Judge Mehmet Güney
Judge Andrésia Vaz

Mr. Hans Holthuis

Order of:
26 September 2005







Counsel for the Prosecution:

Mr. Mark McKeon

Counsel for the Defence:

Mr. Branko D. Lukić
Mr. John R. Ostojic


THE APPEALS CHAMBER of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since 1991,

NOTING the "Prosecutionís Request in Relation to the Appeals Hearing" filed by the Prosecution on 2 September 2005;

NOTING the "Scheduling Order" issued by the Appeals Chamber on 26 September 2005, in which the timetable for the hearing in this case is fixed;

CONSIDERING the need to ensure that the time allotted for the appeal hearing is used as efficiently as possible;

CONSIDERING that the identification of these issues is in no way an expression of an opinion on the merits of the appeals;

HEREBY INFORMS the parties that during the appeal hearing, without prejudice to any matter the parties or the Appeals Chamber may wish to raise, the Appeals Chamber invites the parties to, inter alia, further develop their submissions on the following issues:

Witness BT106

  1. Issue for both parties: Clarify position as to Witness BT106ís reliability and the weight to be attributed to his statements admitted pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.


  2. Issue for the Prosecution: Clarify the legal basis for the claim that the conditions of life cited in paras 3.88-3.105 of the Prosecutionís Appeal Brief constituted methods of physical destruction within the meaning of Article 4 of the Statute.

  3. Issue for the Prosecution: Clarify the legal basis for adopting "policy considerations" referred to in para. 4.9 of the Prosecution's Appeal Brief in interpreting Article 4 of the Statute.

  4. Issue for both parties: Address the legal basis for defining/not defining a group protected under Article 4 of the Statute as "non-Serbs".

    Mode of liability

  5. Issue for both parties: If the Appellantís responsibility were to be analysed in terms of joint criminal enterprise ("JCE"), would the elements of JCE be fulfilled based on the findings of the Trial Chamber?


  6. Issue for the Appellant: Would the Appellant still have objections to reliance on the concept of dolus eventualis within the framework of JCE? If so, what would be the basis for such objections?
  7. Deportation

  8. Issue for both parties: In case the Appeals Chamber were to find that a necessary element of the crime of deportation is a cross-border transfer, clarify whether such a border has to be one of the following: (1) a de jure border; (2) a de facto border; or (3) a de facto border which has been generally recognized.

  9. Issue for both parties: Clarify your positions concerning the mens rea of the crime of deportation with particular reference as to whether the intent to displace must be the intent to displace permanently or otherwise.


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

Dated this 26th day of September 2005,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.

Judge Theodor Meron
Presiding Judge

[Seal of the International Tribunal]