1 - "Judgement", Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Case No.: IT-95-14/1-T, Trial Chamber, 25 June 1999. (For a list of designations and abbreviations used in this Judgement, see Annex).
2 - The President of the International Tribunal re-assigned the case to Trial Chamber I bis on 20 Nov. 1997: "Order of the President", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-T, 20 Nov. 1997.
3 - In the present proceedings, Zlatko Aleksovski is both appellant and cross-respondent. Conversely, the Prosecutor is respondent and cross-appellant. In the interest of clarity, however, the designations "Defence" or "Appellant" and "Prosecution" or "Cross-Appellant", respectively will be employed throughout this Judgement.
4 - Transcript of hearing in Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 9 Feb. 2000, p. 85 (T. 85). (Unless otherwise indicated, all transcript page numbers referred to in the course of this Judgement are from the unofficial, uncorrected version of the English transcript. Minor differences may therefore exist between the pagination therein and that of the final English transcript released to the public.)
5 - "Order for Detention on Remand", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 9 Feb. 2000; T. 85-86.
6 - "Scheduling Order", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 30 July 1999.
7 - "Zlatko Aleksovski’s Appellant’s Brief in Opposition to the Condemnatory Part of the Judgement dated 25 June 1999", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 24 Sept. 1999.
8 - "Respondent’s Brief of the Prosecution", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 25 Oct. 1999.
9 - "The Appellant’s Brief in Reply to the Respondent’s Brief of the Prosecution", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 10 Nov. 1999.
10 - "Scheduling Order", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 8 Dec. 1999.
11 - "The Appellant’s Additional Submissions on Doctrine of Stare Decisis and Defence of "Necessity"", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 11 Jan. 2000.
12 - "Prosecution Response to the Scheduling Order of 8 December 1999", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 11 Jan. 2000.
13 - "Scheduling Order", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 24 Jan. 2000.
14 - "Prosecution Response to Zlatko Aleksovski’s Additional Submissions in Relation to the Defence of ‘Extreme Necessity’", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 31 Jan. 2000 ("Prosecution’s Further Additional Submissions").
15 - T. 2-4.
16 - T. 3; Appellant’s Brief, paras. 1-6 and 10-11.
17 - T. 3; Appellant’s Brief, paras. 3, 7 and 9.
18 - T. 3; Appellant’s Brief, paras. 6 and 9.
19 - T. 3-4; Appellant’s Brief, paras. 12-22.
20 - "Prosecution’s Appeal Brief", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 24 Sept. 1999.
21 - "The Appellant’s Brief in Reply to the Prosecution’s Appeal Brief", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 25 Oct. 1999.
22 - "Brief in Reply of the Prosecution", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 10 Nov. 1999.
23 - Cross-Appellant’s Brief, paras. 1.8 and 2.11.
24 - Ibid., paras. 1.8 and 3.6.
25 - Ibid., paras. 1.8 and 4.6.
26 - Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 2.78.
27 - Ibid., para. 3.45.
28 - Ibid., paras. 4.59-4.60.
29 - See Appellant’s Brief and submissions made orally to the Appeals Chamber in the hearing of 9 Feb. 2000.
30 - Appellant’s Brief, paras. 2-3.
31 - Ibid., paras. 6 and 10.
32 - Ibid., para. 4.
33 - Ibid., paras. 5 and 10.
34 - Ibid., para. 11.
35 - T. 3.
36 - Prosecution’s Response, para. 2.3.
37 - Ibid., paras. 2.4-2.5.
38 - Ibid., para. 2.6.
39 - Ibid., paras. 2.11 and 2.18.
40 - Ibid., para. 2.12.
41 - The Prosecution observes that the Appellant cited no authority to support the contrary assertion (Ibid., para. 2.14). The text of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions does not pronounce on the mental element of Article 3(1)(c). Discriminatory intent can be evidence of inhuman treatment, but is not essential (Ibid., para. 2.18). A requirement of discriminatory intent is not supported in the text of common Article 3 nor that of Additional Protocol I, Article 75(2)(b) and Protocol II, Article 4(2)(e) (Ibid., para. 2.19), nor in customary international law. In Article 4(e) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ("ICTR") and Article 8 (2)(c) (ii) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court ("ICC Statute"), there is no suggestion that discriminatory intent is required (Ibid., paras. 2.20-2.22).
42 - "Judgement", Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Case No.: IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Chamber, 10 Dec. 1998, para. 183 ("Furundzija Judgement").
43 - Prosecution’s Response, para. 2.23.
44 - Ibid., para. 2.24.
45 - Appellant’s Reply, p. 5.
46 - Ibid.
47 - Aleksovski Judgement, paras. 214, 215 and 218.
48 - Ibid., para. 214.
49 - Ibid., para. 55. See also para. 56.
50 - Ibid., para. 56.
51 - Appellant’s Brief, para. 4.
52 - Ibid., paras. 2-4.
53 - "Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction", Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-AR72, Appeals Chamber, 2 Oct. 1995, ("Tadic Jurisdiction Decision"), para. 94.
54 - Ibid.
55 - Ibid., para. 87.
56 - Ibid., para. 89.
57 - The 1907 Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Annexed Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
58 - 1949 Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field; 1949 Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea; 1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; 1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
59 - Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 12 December 1977 ("Additional Protocol I").
60 - Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 12 December 1977 ("Additional Protocol II").
61 - The provision on which the conviction in the present case was founded – Aleksovski Judgement, para. 228.
62 - Pictet (ed.), Commentary to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, ICRC (1958) ("ICRC Commentary to Geneva Convention IV").
63 - Ibid. p. 40.
64 - Pictet (ed.), ICRC Commentary to Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, ICRC (1952), p. 55.
65 - "Judgement", Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-A, Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999 ("Tadic Judgement"), paras. 288, 292; see generally paras. 287-292. See also "Judgement", Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al, Case No.: IT-95-16-T, Trial Chamber, 14 Jan. 2000, para. 558 ("Kupreskic Judgement").
66 - Tadic Judgement, para. 305. A type of discriminatory intent is also an express element of the separate crime of genocide under Article 4 of the Statute.
67 - Furundzija Judgement, para. 188.
68 - Aleksovski Judgement para. 54; ICRC Commentary to Geneva Convention IV, p. 38.
69 - "Judgement", Prosecutor v Delalic et al, Case No.: IT-96-21-T, Trial Chamber, 16 Nov. 1998 ("Celebici Judgement"), para. 543.
70 - Aleksovski Judgement, paras. 224, 229 and 237.
71 - Sandoz et al. (eds.), ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987) ("ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols"), para. 3047. This statement was referred to by the Trial Chamber at paras. 55 and 56. There is no specific reference in the ICRC Commentaries to the Geneva Conventions to the mental element required in relation to the offence of outrages upon personal dignity.
72 - Judgement, para. 56. The Trial Chamber also observed that an outrage against personal dignity is motivated "by contempt for the human dignity of another person" - para. 56. Although this is no doubt true, it does not make such a motivation an element of the offence to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
73 - This does not mean that evidence that an accused who had responsibility for detention conditions discriminated between detainees in the conditions and facilities provided would be irrelevant. If, because of deliberate discrimination between detainees, poor conditions of detention affect only one group or class of detainees, while other detainees enjoy adequate detention conditions, this is evidence which could contribute to a finding that the mens rea of the offence of outrages upon personal dignity is satisfied.
74 - T. 3.
75 - Appellant’s Brief, para. 3.
76 - Ibid., para. 7.
77 - Ibid.
78 - Prosecution’s Response, paras. 2.35 and 2.36-2.38.
79 - Ibid., paras. 2.35 and 2.38.
80 - T. 5.
81 - T. 5.
82 - T. 5-6.
83 - T. 6-7.
84 - T. 7.
85 - Judgement, paras. 87, 185-186, 190, 226 and 228.
86 - Ibid., para. 196.
87 - Ibid., para. 88.
88 - Ibid., paras. 89, 205, 209-210 and 228.
89 - Ibid., para. 209.
90 - Ibid., para. 209.
91 - Ibid., para. 210.
92 - Ibid., paras. 187, 190, 203 and 226.
93 - Ibid., para. 190.
94 - Ibid., paras. 122, 125, 128-129 and 229.
95 - Ibid., para. 129.
96 - Ibid., paras. 104-106, 114, 117-118 and 228.
97 - Ibid., para. 227.
98 - Ibid., para. 228.
99 - Appellant’s Brief, para.7.
100 - Ibid.
101 - Ibid., para. 8.
102 - Ibid.
103 - Prosecution’s Response, para. 2.34.
104 - Ibid.
105 - Ibid.
106 - Ibid., para. 2.61.
107 - Ibid.
108 - Ibid., para. 2.62 (referring to Judgement, paras. 212, 213, 215, 216, 219, 221; paras. 235-36).
109 - Ibid., para. 2.47.
110 - Ibid. (referring to Judgement, para. 227).
111 - Appellant’s Reply, p. 6.
112 - Ibid.
113 - Ibid.
114 - Ibid., pp. 6-7.
115 - Ibid., p. 7.
116 - Ibid.
117 - Ibid., p. 8.
118 - Ibid.
119 - "Scheduling Order", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 8 Dec. 1999.
120 - Appellant’s Additional Submissions, para. 11.
121 - Ibid.
122 - Ibid.
123 - Ibid.
124 - Ibid.
125 - Prosecution’s Additional Submissions, para. 11.
126 - Ibid., para. 11.
127 - Ibid., para. 12.
128 - Ibid., para. 13.
129 - Ibid., para. 14.
130 - Prosecution’s Further Additional Submissions, para. 5.
131 - Ibid., para. 6.
132 - Ibid., para. 7.
133 - Ibid.
134 - See Rule 67(A) and (B) of the Rules in relation to alibi and special defences. This Rule was in force at the time of the trial in this case. Also see Rule 65 ter (F) of the Rules, which came into force after the trial in this case and reads, in part: "…the pre-trial Judge shall order the defence … to file a pre-trial brief addressing factual and legal issues, and including a written statement setting out: (i) in general terms, the nature of the accused’s defence; (ii) the matters with which the accused takes issue in the Prosecutor’s pre-trial brief; and (iii) in the case of each such matter, the reason why the accused takes issue with it."
135 - Tadic Judgement, para. 55; The Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, "Decision on Prosecutor’s Appeal on Admissibility of Evidence", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-AR73, Appeals Chamber, 16 Feb. 2000, paras. 18-20.
136 - Rule 62 of the Rules ("Initial Appearance of Accused").
137 - T. 11-12.
138 - Judgement, para. 102.
139 - T. 12.
140 - Appellant’s Brief, para. 5.
141 - Ibid., paras. 6 and 9.
142 - Ibid., para. 9.
143 - Ibid.
144 - Ibid.
145 - Prosecution’s Response, paras. 2.49 and 2.50, with reference to Judgement, para. 223.
146 - Ibid., para. 2.51.
147 - Ibid., para. 2.52. "HVO" stands for the "Croatian Defence Council".
148 - Ibid.
149 - Ibid., para. 2.53.
150 - Ibid., para. 2.54.
151 - Ibid., para. 2.55.
152 - Ibid., para. 2.56.
153 - Ibid., para. 2.58.
154 - Ibid.
155 - Tadic Judgement, para. 65.
156 - Ibid.
157 - Appellant’s Brief, para. 22. The three elements identified by the Trial Chamber in paragraph 69 of the Judgement correspond to the findings of the Celebici Judgement.
158 - Appellant’s Brief, paras. 15-16.
159 - Ibid., para. 16.
160 - Ibid., para. 17.
161 - Ibid., para. 20.
162 - Ibid., paras. 21-22.
163 - Ibid., para. 22.
164 - Prosecution’s Response, paras. 3.6 and 3.7.
165 - Appellant’s Reply, para. Ad.6.
166 - Ibid.
167 - Judgement, para. 103.
168 - Ibid.
169 - Ibid., paras. 104 and 117.
170 - Ibid., para. 117.
171 - The Trial Chamber referred expressly to the Appellant’s acceptance of the elements at first instance: ibid., para. 71.
172 - Ibid., para. 69.
173 - Appellant’s Brief, para. 16.
174 - Tadic Judgement, para. 64.
175 - Appellant’s Brief, para. 22.
176 - Judgement, paras. 101-106.
177 - The Appellant relies in this regard on the 1998 ICC Statute in particular: Appellant’s Brief, para. 17. Article 28 of the Statute clearly envisages responsibility for both military and civilian superiors.
178 - Ibid., para. 106.
179 - "Joint Opinion of the Majority, Judge Vohrah and Judge Nieto-Navia, on the Applicability of Article 2 of the Statute Pursuant to Paragraph 46 of the Judgement", Case No.: IT-95-14/1-T, 25 June 1999 ("Majority Opinion").
180 - Cross-Appellant’s Brief, paras. 2.11, 2.17-2.29.
181 - Ibid., paras. 2.13-2.16.
182 - Ibid., para. 2.32. Croatia exercised political influence and control over the Bosnian Croats (ibid., paras 2.33-2.35); Croatia sent troops to Bosnia and Herzegovina ("BH") to serve Croatian interests (ibid., paras. 2.36-2.38); Croatia exercised military control over the HVO (ibid., paras. 2.39-2.49). In this regard the majority of the Trial Chamber failed to consider six documents showing the presence of HV in BH and their support for the HVO (ibid., para. 2.47).
183 - Ibid., para. 2.50.
184 - Ibid., paras. 2.56 and 2.58.
185 - Ibid., para. 2.57.
186 - Ibid., para. 2.59, with reference to the Tadic Judgement, para. 168.
187 - Ibid., para. 2.60.
188 - Ibid., paras. 2.66-2.69.
189 - Appellant’s Response, p. 22.
190 - Ibid., p. 5.
191 - Ibid.
192 - Ibid., pp. 5, 6 and 13.
193 - Ibid., pp. 7-8.
194 - Ibid., p. 7.
195 - Ibid.
196 - Ibid. pp. 7 and 20.
197 - Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgement, ICJ Reports (1986) ("Nicaragua"), p. 14.
198 - Ibid., pp. 9-11.
199 - Ibid., pp. 8-9.
200 - Ibid., p. 9.
201 - Ibid., pp.10, 11 and 21.
202 - Ibid., pp. 13-15 and 19.
203 - Ibid., pp. 13-15.
204 - Ibid., p. 21.
205 - Cross-Appellant’s Reply, paras. 1.5-1.18.
206 - The Prosecution refutes the following: (1) the Appellant’s claim that the Prosecution relies on an "intervention theory" (ibid., paras. 2.3-2.5); (2) the Appellant’s claim that the conflict must be deemed internal to avoid unequal application of Article 2 of the Statute (ibid., paras. 2.7-2.10); (3) the Appellant’s claim that there was no evidence that Croatia was at war with BH (ibid., paras. 2.11-2.44); (4) the Appellant’s claim that the "effective control" test should be applied instead of the "overall control" test (ibid., paras. 2.46-2.60).
207 - Ibid., paras. 2.67-2.88.
208 - Scheduling Order, Case No.: IT-95-14/1-A, 8 Dec. 1999.
209 - Prosecution’s Additional Submissions, para. 4.
210 - Ibid.
211 - Ibid., para. 4.
212 - Ibid., paras. 5-7.
213 - Appellant’s Additional Submissions, paras. 3-8.
214 - Ibid., paras. 4-5.
215 - Ibid., para. 6.
216 - Ibid., para. 7.
217 - Ibid.
218 - Ibid., para. 8.
219 - Ibid.
220 - Ibid.
221 - Ibid., para. 9.
222 - Ibid., para. 10.
223 - Ibid.
224 - Ibid.
225 - The practice statement was read by Lord Gardiner LC, on behalf of himself and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, before judgements were delivered on 26 July 1966. See Cross and Harris, Precedent in English Law (1991), p.104, n. 27.
226 - Fitzleet Estates Ltd. v. Cherry (Inspector of Taxes), (1977( 3 All ER 996, 999 (emphasis added).
227 - Queensland v. Commonwealth (1977) 16 ALR 487 at 497 (emphasis added).
228 - Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvannia et al. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 854 (1992).
229 - Ibid.
230 - Ibid.
231 - David and De Vries, The French Legal System (1958), p. 113 (emphasis added).
232 - Cappelletti, Merryman and Perillo, The Italian Legal System: An Introduction (1967), p.271.
233 - Reid, A Practitioner’s Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights (1998), p. 43.
234 - European Court of Human Rights, Cossey Judgement of 27 September 1990, Series A, vol. 184.
235 - Ibid., para. 35 (emphasis added).
236 - Interpretation of Peace Treaties, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1950, p. 65, at p. 104, Judge Zoricic, Dissenting Opinion.
237 - Shahabuddeen, Precedent in the World Court (1996), p. 239.
238 - Ibid., pp. 131-2.
239 - Article 31(1), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969.
240 - Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), presented 3 May 1993, S/25704 ("Report of the Secretary-General"), para. 116.
241 - See Article 17 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Tokyo, 19 January 1946 and Article 26 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany, 8 August 1945.
242 - See Article 1 of the Statute.
243 - Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Preliminary Objections, Judgement, ICJ Reports 1964, p. 6, at p. 65, Judge Tanaka, Separate Opinion.
244 - Ibid., p. 65 (emphasis added).
245 - Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court (1985), p. 613.
246 - Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR Commentary (1993) comments that the bundle of rights which constitute the right to a fair trial are those set out in Articles 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 ("ICCPR") (Ibid., Article 14, para. 19).
247 - See Article 6 of the 1949 European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights and Article 7 of the 1981 African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
248 - See footnote 243, Judge Tanaka’s Separate Opinion.
249 - Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed., 1999).
250 - Zweigert and Kotz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (1998), p. 263.
251 - See para. 104, supra.
252 - Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 2.4.
253 - Ibid., para. 2.17.
254 - Ibid., para. 2.18.
255 - Tadic Judgement, para. 156.
256 - Cross-Appellant’s Reply, para. 1.18.
257 - Appellant’s Additional Submissions, para. 7.
258 - Ibid., para. 8.
259 - Appellant’s Additional Submissions, para. 10.
260 - Ibid., paras. 7 and 8.
261 - See para. 110, supra.
262 - Article 15 of the ICCPR states in relevant part: "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed."
263 - Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-T, Opinion and Judgment, 7 May 1997.
264 - Tadic Judgement, para. 120.
265 - Ibid.
266 - Ibid., paras. 124–131.
267 - Appellant’s Response, paras. 5 and 10. The Tadic Judgement was delivered on 15 July 1999, approximately three weeks after the Judgement in Aleksovski had been issued, on 25 June 1999.
268 - Majority Opinion, para. 8,
269 - Ibid., para. 9.
270 - Majority Opinion, para. 11 (footnotes omitted).
271 - Ibid., para. 12 (footnotes omitted).
272 - Ibid., para. 23 (footnotes omitted).
273 - Ibid., para. 27 (footnotes omitted).
274 - See in this regard, the reference to the "higher standard" of Nicaragua in the Majority Opinion, para. 12.
275 - Tadic Judgement, para. 168.
276 - Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 2.56.
277 - Tadic Judgement, para. 166.
278 - Ibid., para. 168.
279 - Ibid.
280 - Indictment, para. 31.
281 - Judgement, para. 228.
282 - Ibid., para. 229.
283 - Ibid., paras. 125 and 128-129.
284 - Ibid., para. 130.
285 - Indictment, para. 37, which was in the following terms: "… individually, and in concert with others, planned, instigated, ordered or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of the unlawful treatment of Bosnian Muslim detainees in the Lašva Valley area of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and, or in the alternative, knew, or had reason to know, that subordinates were about to do the same, or had done so, and failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof."
286 - Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 3.14. Reliance is placed upon para. 40 of the Judgement, which stated: "The allegations of inhuman treatment … are based not only on the detention conditions in Kaonik compound … but also on the treatment meted out to the detainees at trench-digging locations (forced labour, mistreatment, inadequate food) and the fact that they were used as human shields. In support of her charge of wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health under Article 2(c) of the Statute, the Prosecutor relies not only on mistreatment inside the Kaonik compound but also on suffering and injury to body or health resulting from mistreatment or hazardous circumstances in which prisoners were forced to dig trenches. In respect of outrages against personal dignity as recognised by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the Prosecutor invokes unlawful detention … forced trench-digging, use of detainees as human shields and, more generally, refers to the elements of breaches under Article 2 of the Statute. The facts submitted by the Prosecutor in support of the three charges therefore relate to events taking place both inside and outside the Kaonik compound."
287 - Judgement, para. 128.
288 - See para. 168, infra.
289 - Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 3.16; T. 45-49.
290 - Appellant’s Response, pp. 23-24; T. 80-81.
291 - Appellant’s Response, pp. 23-24.
292 - Cross-Appellant’s Reply, para. 3.5.
293 - Appellant’s Response, p. 23. Although incomplete, the statement by the Appellant was not inaccurate: see paras. 162-164, infra.
294 - Furundzija Judgement, paras. 190-249.
295 - Ibid., para. 249.
296 - Ibid., para. 245.
297 - Judges Cassese and Mumba were members of the Trial Chamber in Furundzija, and of the Appeals Chamber in Tadic.
298 - Tadic Judgement, para. 229.
299 - Aleksovski Judgement, para. 60.
300 - Ibid, para. 61. The citations of authority have been omitted.
301 - Trial Chamber Transcript (English), pp. 580-588.
302 - Ibid., pp. 599-602.
303 - Ibid., pp. 923-924.
304 - Ibid., p. 1392.
305 - Ibid., pp. 1396-1397.
306 - Ibid., pp. 1445-1449.
307 - Ibid., pp. 1457-1461.
308 - Ibid., p. 1494.
309 - Judgement, para. 33.
310 - T. 55-56.
311 - Judgement, para. 130. See para. 157, supra.
312 - Judgement, para. 128.
313 - Ibid, para. 224.
314 - See Judgement, paras. 125 and 128-129. Also see para. 157, supra.
315 - Judgement, para. 229.
316 - Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 3.16; T. 45-49.
317 - Judgement, para. 129.
318 - Ibid, para. 130.
319 - The practice by the Prosecution of merely quoting the provisions of Article 7(1) in the indictment is likely to cause ambiguity, and it is preferable that the Prosecution indicate in relation to each individual count precisely and expressly the particular nature of the responsibility alleged: "Decision on Preliminary Motion on Form of Amended Indictment", Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No.: IT-97-25-PT, Trial Chamber, 11 Feb. 2000, paras. 59-60.
320 - Judgement, para. 40, quoted in 286, supra.
321 - Judgement, paras. 87, and 185-186.
322 - Ibid., paras. 88 and 196.
323 - Ibid., paras. 89, 205, and 209-210. The Trial Chamber, however, treated this as "an isolated case which does not demonstrate a systematic resolve to mistreat the prisoners": ibid., para. 120.
324 - Ibid., paras. 187 and 203.
325 - Ibid., paras. 122, 125, and 128-129.
326 - Ibid., para. 228.
327 - Ibid., para. 229.
328 - Ibid., paras. 227-228.
329 - Ibid., paras. 104 and 114.
330 - Ibid., paras. 104-106, 114 and 117-118.
331 - Ibid., para. 235.
332 - Ibid., para. 236. The common indictment from which the counts against the Appellant were severed involved charges against (among others) a senior political official and the commander of the local operative zone.
333 - Ibid., para. 237.
334 - Ibid., para. 238.
335 - Ibid., para. 242.
336 - Ibid., para. 243.
337 - Ibid., para. 245.
338 - Cross-Appellant’s Brief, para. 1.8.
339 - Ibid., para. 4.6.
340 - Ibid., paras. 4.16-4.20.
341 - Ibid., paras. 4.20-4.37.
342 - Ibid., paras. 4.39-4.41.
343 - According to the Prosecution, the following factors could not reasonably have been regarded by the Trial Chamber as justifying a significant reduction in the sentence that would otherwise be warranted by the inherent gravity of the Appellant’s conduct: (1) that the crimes were committed during two distinct periods and that they occurred at the peak of the conflict (ibid., para. 4.48); (2) the good character of the accused (ibid., para. 4.49); (3) the motive of the accused in taking up his post (ibid., para. 4.50); (4) the accused’s knowledge of the broader frame (ibid., para. 4.51); (5) his efforts to improve conditions (ibid., para. 4.52); and (6) his family life (ibid., para. 4.54).
344 - Ibid., para. 4.59.
345 - Appellant’s Response, para. 16.
346 - T. 85.
347 - "Order for Detention on Remand", IT-95-14/1-A, 9 Feb. 2000.
348 - Article 24(2) of the Statute.
349 - Celebici Judgement, para. 1225.
350 - Kupreskic Judgement, para. 852.
351 - "Judgement in Sentencing Appeals", Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-A and IT-94-1-Abis, Appeals Chamber, 26 Jan. 2000, para. 56.
352 - Ibid., para. 48.
353 - "Sentencing Judgement", Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Case No.: IT-96-22-T, 24 Dec. 1996, para. 64; "Judgement", Prosecutor v. Delalic et al., Case No.: IT-96-21-T, 16 Nov. 1998, para. 1234; "Judgement”, Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Case No.: IT-95-17/1-T, 10 Dec. 1998, para. 288; “Judgement and Sentence”, Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Case No.: ICTR 97-23-S, 4 Sept. 1998, para. 28; “Sentence”, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No.: ICTR-96-4-S, 2 Oct. 1998, para. 19; Sentence, Prosecutor v. Serushago, Case No.: ICTR-98-39-S, 5 Feb. 1999, para. 20; "Judgement and Sentence", Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No.: ICTR-96-3-T, 6 Dec. 1999, para. 456; "Judgement and Sentence", Prosecutor v. Musema, Case No.: ICTR-96-13-T, 27 Jan. 2000, para. 986.
354 - "Sentencing Judgement", Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, 24 Dec. 1996, paras. 64-65.
355 - "Judgement", Prosecutor v. Kambanda, 4 Sept.1998, para. 28.
356 - Criminal Justice Act 1998 s.36.
357 - Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 4 of 1989) (1990( 1 WLR 41; 90 Cr. App. Rep. 366; (1990( Crim LR 438.
358 - Regina v. Ronald Trafford Allpass, (1993) 72 A. Crim R. 561 at 562.
359 - Italian Criminal Code, Art. 133; German Criminal Code (StGB) s. 46.
360 - "Judgement in Sentencing Appeals", Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-A and IT-94-1-Abis, 26 Jan. 2000, para. 22.
361 - In 1985 Zdravko Kostic was found guilty by the District Court of Sabac of war crimes against the civilian population, proscribed under Art. 142 of the SFRY Criminal Code, for his participation in beating up a civilian and molesting the victim’s family. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment with his youth as the single mitigating factor, a sentence upheld by the Supreme Court of Serbia on appeal: District Court of Sabac, K-32/85, 2 Oct. 1985. The Appeals Chamber also notes the case of Willy Zühlke, a German prison warden who was convicted by the Netherlands Special Court of the beating of Jewish and other prisoners as a war crime and crimes against humanity in 1948. The Court took account of the fact that the accused had allowed himself to be carried along with "the criminal stream of German terrorism" rather than acting with intent on his own initiative and also found that the ill-treatment was not of a very serious nature. Willy Zühlke was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. Judgement of the Bijzonder Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 3 Aug. 1948 (referred to in Judgement of Bijzondere Raad van Cassatie, 6 Dec. 1948, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 1949 No. 85): English translation in UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminal, Vol. XIV, p.139.
362 - See para. 173, supra.
363 - In common law this double exposure to sentencing is referred to as "double jeopardy" which is applicable to all the different stages of the criminal justice process: prosecution, conviction and punishment: Pearce v. R., (1998) 156 ALR 684. See also Att-Gen.’s Ref. (No. 15 of 1991) (R. v. King), CA 13 CR. App R (S) 622, (1992( Crim L R 454; Att-Gen. Ref. (No. 2 of 1997) (Neville Anthony Hoffman) [1998] 1 Cr. App R (S) 27, [1997] Crim LR 611; Att-Gen.’s Ref. (No. 40 of 1996) (R. v. Robinson) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R (S) 357, (1997( Crim LR 69.