The “atrocities and offenses” listed [in Law No. 10]“murder, extermination,” etc., are all offenses against the person. Property is not mentioned. Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis the catch-all words “other persecutions” must be deemed to include only such as affect the life and liberty of the oppressed peoples. Compulsory taking of industrial property, however reprehensible, is not in that category. The Flick Case, Trials of War Criminals Before the Nürnberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. 6, p. 1215. In the Eichmann case, the Israeli District Court held that the plunder of property could only be considered to constitute a crime against humanity if it was committed “by pressure of mass terror against a civilian population, or if it [was] linked to any of the other acts of violence defined by the [Nazi and Nazi Collaborators Punishment Law, 5710/1950] as a crime against humanity or as a result of any of those acts, i.e. murder, extermination, starvation, or deportation of any civilian population, so that the plunder is only part of a general process…” The Individual in International Law, in International Law Reports, E. Lauterpacht, ed., vol. 36, London (1968), p. 241. However, the Rome Statute is expansive in its definition of crimes which may fall under persecution; Art. 7(1)(h)(4) states that “The conduct was committed in connection with any act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.” Pillaging constitutes a war crime under Art. 8(2)(e)(v) of the Rome Statute. The Appeals Chamber is aware, however, that the Rome Statute entered into force after the crimes at issue in this case took place.
311 - The French version of Art. 5(d) of the Statute uses the word “expulsion”. However, the Trial Chamber in paragraph 234 of the Trial Judgement used the French word “déportation.”
312 - Trial Judgement, para. 234 (quoting the definition in Art. 7(2)(d) of the Rome Statute).
313 - LRTWC, vol. XIII, 1949, p. 105, in Trial Judgement, para. 223.
314 - LRTWC, vol. XIV, 1949, p. 141, in Trial Judgement, para. 223.
315 - Eichmann Case, 29 May 1962, 36, ILR, 1968, Count 5, p. 277, cited in Trial Judgement, para. 224.
316 - Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, paras. 221-222. The separate opinion of Judge Schomburg appended to that judgement calls for the direct application of “deportation”, punishable under Article 5(d) of the Statute.
317 - Indictment, paras. 6.4-6.5.
318 - Trial of Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945–1 October 1946, Judgement (1947), pp. 249-253, cited in para. 222 of the Trial Judgement.
319 - Trial Judgement, para. 234.
320 - Disposition, p. 267 of Trial Judgement.
321 - Indictment, Count 1, paras. 6.4-6.5.
322 - Trial Judgement, paras. 591, 660-661.
323 - Unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian objects are also charged later in the Indictment in Counts 2-4, as violations of the laws or customs of war.
324 - Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 127; Kupreskic Trial Judgement, para. 521.
325 - Prosecutor v. Strugar et al, Case No.: IT-01-42-AR72, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal, 22 Nov. 2002, para. 10; Prosecutor v. Martic, Case No.: IT-95-11-R61, Decision, 8 Mar. 1996, para. 10.
326 - Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 127.
327 - G.A. Res. 2444, U.N. GAOR, 23rd Session, Supp. No. 18 U.N. Doc A/7218 (1968).
328 - G.A. Res. 2675, U.N. GAOR, 25th Session, Supp. No. 28 U.N. Doc A/8028 (1970).
329 - See 6 Official Records, p. 164, 201, 179.
330 - Kupreskic Trial Judgement, para. 627; Krnojelac Trial Judgement, para. 434.
331 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.88.
332 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 6.89-6.97, 6.104-6.115.
333 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 6.92.
334 - Trial Judgement, para. 235 (s omitted).
335 - Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 184; Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 113.
336 - Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 184.
337 - Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 184.
338 - See, for example, Trial Judgement, paras. 474, 562, 592, 653, and 738.
339 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 176-178. The Appellant also attempts to distinguish the Tadic Appeal Judgement on the grounds that that case concerned Bosnian Serbs who were trying to create a new State by seceding. Appellant’s Brief, p. 177, n. 490. This ground of appeal was the Tenth Ground in the Appellant’s Brief.
340 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 177.
341 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 177.
342 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 177-178.
343 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 176-177.
344 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 178.
345 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 178; See also Brief in Reply, para. 149 (restating “[t]hat a conflict may be international in character by virtue of third-party intervention, does not as a matter of law convert the supported entity into an Occupying Power for purposes of Article 4”).
346 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 178-179.
347 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.2. The Appeals Chamber observes that, while there is some dispute as to whether the Appellant challenges the Trial Chamber’s findings that the property referred to in the Article 2 charges was protected property under the Geneva Conventions, the Appellant has asserted no identifiable arguments on this issue. See Appellant’s Brief, p. 178 (claiming “Bosnian Muslim civilian persons and property were not protected within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions”, with no further explanation regarding property). The Appeals Chamber will not speculate as to what arguments the Appellant might have raised on this issue.
348 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.4.
349 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 7.7-7.10 (citing Tadic Appeal Judgement, paras 163-169; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, paras. 147-152; Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras. 52-106). The Appeals Chamber notes that the Prosecution calls particular attention to the Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, which dealt with the same conflict as that addressed by the Blaskic Trial Chamber. The Appeals Chamber further notes, however, that the Aleksovski Appeal Chamber declined to makes its own determination of the facts as to either the international character of the conflict or the status of the Bosnian Muslim victims as protected persons. Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 153(iii).
350 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.11.
351 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 7.12-7.13.
352 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.14.
353 - Brief in Reply, para. 147.
354 - Brief in Reply, para. 151.
355 - Brief in Reply, para. 152.
356 - Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 80; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 113.
357 - Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 129; See also Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 12.
358 - Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 168.
359 - Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 166.
360 - Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 169.
361 - Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, paras. 150-151.
362 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 83.
363 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 98.
364 - Trial Judgement, paras. 94 and 123.
365 - Geneva Convention IV, Art. 4(1); See also Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 167.
366 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 83.
367 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 104.
368 - Compare Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 125.
369 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 177-178.
370 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 73 (s omitted).
371 - Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, paras. 126-127; See also Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 173. The principle of legality is manifest in Article 15 of the ICCPR, which provides: 1. 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. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby. 2. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.
372 - Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, paras. 126-127 (finding the principle of nullem crimen sine lege is not violated with respect to crimes under Article 2 of the Statute).
373 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras. 179-180.
374 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 180.
375 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 179-181.
376 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 180.
377 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 179-182.
378 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.20.
379 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.21.
380 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 7.21-7.22.
381 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.22 (citing Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 157).
382 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 7.25.
383 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 179.
384 - Commentary to Geneva Convention IV, p. 49 (emphasis added).
385 - Commentary to Geneva Convention IV, p. 49.
386 - It provides: “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Conventions are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.”
387 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 181.
388 - Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 168.
389 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 181.
390 - Trial Judgement, paras. 137, 139.
391 - Trial Judgement, paras. 138-143.
392 - P584.
393 - Witness Degan, T 16181.
394 - Witness Vulliamy, T 7766-7769.
395 - Witness Vulliamy, T 7791, 8535-8539, and 8556-8557.
396 - D345 and P462.
397 - This ground of appeal was the Sixth Ground in the Appellant’s Brief.
398 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 114-115.
399 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 114-115.
400 - Hereinafter “Amended Indictment.”
401 - See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No.: IT-95-14-PT, Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based Upon Defects in the Form of the Indictment (Vagueness/Lack of Adequate Notice of Charges), 16 Dec. 1996 (“Motion to Dismiss”). The Trial Chamber in its decision refers to the former as “direct command responsibility” and the latter as “indirect command responsibility,” para. 31.
402 - Ibid., para. G at pp. 8-12.
403 - See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-PT, Decision on the Defence Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based Upon Defects in the Form Thereof (Vagueness/Lack of Adequate Notice of Charges), 4 April 1997.
404 - Ibid., para. 32.
405 - Ibid.
406 - Ibid., para. 39.
407 - See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-PT, Request for Enforcement of the Trial Chamber’s Order of 4 April 1997, dated 2 May 1997, and filed on 10 June 1997.
408 - See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-PT, Decision on the Defence Request for Enforcement of an Order of the Trial Chamber, dated 23 May 1997, and filed on 10 June 1997, p. 5 (emphasis added).
409 - Ibid., p. 6.
410 - Ibid.
411 - Summary of the Prosecutor’s Final Brief, 22 July 1999 (filed on 30 July 1999), para. 8.2, p. 59.
412 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 117.
413 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.9.
414 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 118.
415 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 118.
416 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 119-20. See also AT 798 (17 Dec. 2003).
417 - During oral argument, Counsel for the Appellant suggested that the Prosecution may have been “reckless” in issuing the indictment without producing the basic documents on which the allegations were based. AT 800 (17 Dec. 2003).
418 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.4.
419 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 4.5-4.7.
420 - The Prosecution refers to decisions rendered in the Krnojelac, Brdjanin and Talic, Kupreskic and Dosen and Kolundzija cases. Respondent’s Brief, paras. 4.32-4.44.
421 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.20.
422 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.23.
423 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.26.
424 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.30.
425 - Brief in Reply, paras. 96-99.
426 - Decision on the Defence Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based Upon Defects in the Form Thereof (Vagueness/Lack of Adequate Notice of Charges), 4 April 1997, para. 10.
427 - Ibid., para. 11.
428 - Ibid.
429 - When the Trial Chamber issued its decision on the Second Amended Indictment, the relevant rule was Rule 47(B). For the sake of simplicity, this Judgement will consistently refer to Rule 47(C) where the relevant provision being discussed is the identically worded provision, which was then numbered Rule 47(B).
430 - Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 88. Where the Appeals Chamber referred to the following authority: Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 147; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No.: IT-97-25-PT, Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 24 Feb. 1999 (“Krnojelac Decision 24 February 1999”), paras. 7, 12; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No.: IT-97-25-PT, Decision on Preliminary Motion on the Form of Amended Indictment, 11 Feb. 2000 (“Krnojelac Decision 11 February 2000”), paras. 17, 18; Prosecutor v. Brdjanin and Talic, Case No.: IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Objections by Momir Talic to the Form of the Amended Indictment, 20 Feb. 2001 (“Brdjanin and Talic 20 February 2001 Decision”), para. 18. This view was subsequently adopted by the Appeals Chamber in the Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 131.
431 - Krnojelac 24 February 1999 Decision, para. 12; See also Prosecutor v. Dosen and Kolundzija, Case No.: IT-95-8-PT, Decision on Preliminary Motions, 10 Feb. 2000 (“Kolundzija 10 February 2000 Decision”), para. 21; Krnojelac Decision 11 February 2000, para. 17; Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic, Case No.: IT-98-34-PT, Decision on Defendant Vinko Martinovic’s Objection to the Indictment, 15 Feb. 2000, paras. 17, 18; Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 153; Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No.: IT-00-39-PT, Decision Concerning Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 1 Aug. 2000 (“Krajisnik Decision”), para. 8; Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, Case No. IT-00-39-AR72, Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal the Trial Chamber’s Decision Concerning Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 13 Sept. 2000, p. 3.
432 - Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 89; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 132.
433 - Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, para. 18; Prosecutor v. Brdjanin and Talic, Case No.: IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Objections by Radoslav Brdjanin to the Form of the Amended Indictment, 23 Feb. 2001 (“Brdjanin and Talic 23 February 2001 Decision”), para. 13; Brdjanin and Talic 20 February 2001 Decision, para. 18; Prosecutor v. Hadzihasanovic et al, Case No.: IT-01-47-PT, Decision on Form of the Indictment, 7 Dec. 2001 (“Hadzihasanovic 7 December 2001 Decision”), para. 19; Prosecutor v. Mrksic et al, Case No.: IT-95-13/1-PT, Decision on Form of the Indictment, 19 June 2003 (“Mrksic Decision”), para. 8. See also Kolundzija 10 February 2000 Decision, para. 15. In that case, the Prosecution had provided additional information regarding the time and place of the alleged offences, and the identity of the victims and co-perpetrators, in a confidential attachment. The Trial Chamber also ordered the Prosecution to file an amended version of the confidential attachment as part of the amended indictment. See Prosecutor v. Mrksic et al, Case No.: IT-95-13/1-PT, Decision on Form of Consolidated Amended Indictment and on Prosecution Application to Amend, 23 Jan. 2004, para. 52.
434 - Brdjanin and Talic 23 February 2001 Decision, para. 10; Mrksic Decision, para. 8.
435 - This type of responsibility was described by the Trial Chamber in Krnojelac as “personal” responsibility and referred to as “direct” responsibility by the Appeals Chamber in Krnojelac. See Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, para. 18 (C) and Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 138.
436 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 350.
437 - Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 171, n. 319 (referring to Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, paras. 59-60).
438 - Prosecutor v. Deronjic, Case No.: IT-02-61-PT, Decision on Form of the Indictment, 25 Oct. 2002 (Deronjic Decision), para. 6; Mrksic Decision, para. 9.
439 - Ibid.
440 - Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-T, Decision on the Defence Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 14 November 1995, paras. 11-13; Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, para. 18; Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 89. The Trial Chamber in the Deronjic case ordered the Prosecution to plead the identity of the murder victims with respect to each incident charged under Article 7(1) and Article 7(3) of the Statute. Deronjic Decision, para. 37.
441 - Krnojelac 24 February 1999 Decision, para. 13; Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, para. 18; Brdjanin and Talic 20 February 2001 Decision, para. 20.
442 - Kolundzija 10 February 2000 Decision, para. 15.
443 - Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 138. The Krnojelac Appeals Chamber also held: “However, this does not, in principle, prevent the Prosecution from pleading elsewhere than in the indictment- for instance in a pre-trial brief- the legal theory which it believes best demonstrates that the crime or crimes alleged are imputable to the accused in law in light of the facts alleged. This option is, however, limited by the need to guarantee the accused a fair trial.” Ibid. The Appeals Chamber notes that in the case at hand, no pre-trial brief was filed since Rule 65ter was only adopted in July 2001.
444 - Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 171, n. 319; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 134; See also Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras. 350, 351.
445 - Krnojelac 24 February 1999 Decision, para. 38; Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, para. 18; Brdjanin and Talic 20 February 2001 Decision, para. 20.
446 - Krnojelac 24 February 1999 Decision, para. 40; Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, para. 18; Brdjanin and Talic 20 February 2001 Decision, para. 20.
447 - Krnojelac 24 February 1999 Decision, para. 19.
448 - Prosecutor v Brdjanin and Talic, Case No IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend, 26 June 2001 (“Brdjanin and Talic 26 June 2001 Decision”), para. 19.
449 - Prosecutor v. Delalic et al, Case No.: IT-96-21-T, Decision on Motion by the Accused Zejnil Delalic Based on Defects in the Form of the Indictment, 2 Oct. 1996, para. 19.
450 - Krnojelac 24 February 1999 Decision, para. 46.
451 - Deronjic Decision, para. 15 (ordering the Prosecution to clearly plead the position forming the basis of the superior responsibility charges).
452 - Deronjic Decision, para. 19.
453 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 256.
454 - Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, para. 18; Brdjanin and Talic 20 February 2001 Decision, para. 19; Krajisnik, Decision, para. 9; Hadzihasanovic 7 December 2001 Decision, paras 11, 17; Mrksic Decision, para. 10.
455 - Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, para. 18; Krajisnik Decision, para. 9; Brdjanin and Talic, 20 February 2001 Decision, para. 19; Hadzihasanovic 7 December 2001 Decision, para. 11; Mrksic Decision, para. 10.
456 - Krnojelac 24 February 1999 Decision, para. 38; Hadzihasanovic 7 December 2001 Decision, para. 11; Mrksic Decision, para. 10.
457 - Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, para. 18; Brdjanin and Talic 20 February 2001 Decision, para. 19; Hadzihasanovic 7 December 2001 Decision, para. 11; Mrksic Decision, para. 10.
458 - Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, para. 18; Brdjanin and Talic 20 February 2001 Decision, para. 19; Prosecutor v. Kvocka et al, Case No.: IT-98-30-PT, Decision on Defence Preliminary Motions on the Form of the Indictment, 12 Apr. 1999, para. 17; Krajisnik Decision, para. 9; Hadzihasanovic 7 December 2001 Decision, para. 11; Mrksic Decision, para. 10.
459 - Brdjanin and Talic 20 February 2001 Decision, para. 19; Krnojelac 11 February 2000 Decision, para.18; Krajisnik Decision, para. 9; Hadzihasanovic 7 December 2001 Decision, para. 11; Deronjic Decision, para. 7; Mrksic Decision, para. 10.
460 - Brdjanin and Talic 26 June 2001 Decision, para. 33; Mrksic Decision, para. 11.
461 - Brdjanin and Talic 20 February 2001 Decision, para. 48; Prosecutor v. Brdjanin and Talic, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Form of Fourth Amended Indictment, 23 November 2001, para. 12; Hadzihasanovic 7 December 2001 Decision, para. 10; Deronjic Decision, para. 9; Mrksic Decision, para. 12.
462 - Brdjjanin and Talic 20 February 2001 Decision, para. 48; Hadzihasanovic 7 December 2001 Decision, para. 10; Mrksic Decision, para. 12.
463 - Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 114.
464 - Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 92 ( omitted).
465 - Ibid., at para. 92 ( omitted).
466 - Ibid.
467 - Ibid., para. 87.
468 - Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 174.
469 - Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 55; cited in Kambanda Appeal Judgement, para. 25, and Akayesu Appeal Judgement, para. 361.
470 - Akayesu Appeal Judgement, para. 361.
471 - The Appeals Chamber notes that in Kupreskic, the Prosecution advanced no waiver argument since the appellants (Zoran and Mirjan Kupreskic) had objected to the form of the indictment before the Trial Chamber, on the same grounds raised before the Appeals Chamber.
472 - The Appeals Chamber notes that in its decision on the Appellant’s motion for dismissal of the indictment, the Trial Chamber considered: “a motion, like the one submitted to the Judges in the present case seeking the dismissal of some of the counts in the indictment against  [the Appellant] amounts to a request for leave to amend the indictment, which the Defence, not wishing to base itself on the new Rule 98 bis recognises explicitly…” Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No.: IT-95-14-T, Decision of Trial Chamber I on the Defence Motion to Dismiss, 7 Sept. 1998, p. 4.
473 - Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-PT, Decision on the Defence Request for Enforcement of an Order of the Trial Chamber, dated 23 May 1997, filed on 10 June 1997, p. 5 (“Blaskic 10 June 1997 Decision”).
474 - Second Amended Indictment, para. 6.0.
475 - Second Amended Indictment, para. 6.0 (emphasis added).
476 - Blaskic 10 June 1997 Decision, p. 5.
477 - Deronjic Decision, para. 31.
478 - See para. 218 supra.
479 - See Deronjic Decision, para. 20; Mrksic Decision, para. 65.
480 - Appellant’s Brief, para. 118.
481 - AT 606 (16 Dec. 2003).
482 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 118-119.
483 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 119.
484 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 4.14-4.16.
485 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 4.17, 4.22.
486 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 4.63-4.70.
487 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.47.
488 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 4.57-4.62; 4.71-4.72.
489 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 4.73-4.78.
490 - 11 EHRR 513 (1989). See Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.78, n. 1003.
491 - Counsel for the Prosecution stated: “I would also refer you to the case of Colak v. Germany, before the European Court of Human Rights, which goes to a point which we have drawn attention to in our respondent's brief. In this case, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that an accused can derive no rights from comments made during trial proceedings. If these comments are not accompanied by a statement that a certain charge or a count would be withdrawn…We rely on this case to state that likewise, to the extent that the appellant claims that the Presiding Judge would have misled him regarding the question of whether this was a 7(1) case or a 7(3) case, the comment cannot be relied upon.” AT 715 (16 Dec. 2003).
492 - Brief in Reply, para. 101 (referring to Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 114).
493 - Brief in Reply, paras. 102-104. During the hearing on appeal, Counsel for the Appellant stated: “It appears from the judgement [sic] appellant has already been convicted ?…g under both 7(1) and 7(3). The prejudice is: We were forced to try this case and respond to two inconsistent theories simultaneously, and that's a definition, the definition, the most basic definition, of a defective indictment. We also don't have a valid judgement document, because the judgement does not articulate a clear theory of liability. It conflates 7(1) and 7(3). There was no trial where appellant had fair and full notice of the charges.” AT 797-798 (17 Dec. 2003).
494 - Brief in Reply, para. 105.
495 - Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 114.
496 - Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 114.
497 - Ibid., para. 122.
498 - Ibid., para. 121.
499 - Ibid, paras. 117, 120.
500 - Ibid, para. 122 (emphasis added).
501 - See T 9-19, 26, 31-35, 40, 43, 50 (24 June 1997).
502 - T 53 (24 June 1997). The Appeals Chamber notes that, with respect to the allegations pertaining to Ahmici, during its opening argument, the Prosecution addressed the issue of the Appellant’s superior responsibility for the commission of crimes by his subordinates, and his individual criminal responsibility by reference to the Appellant’s orders to attack villages mentioned in the indictment. See T 43, 50 (24 June 1997).
503 - See Krnojelac 24 February 1999 Decision, para. 40.
504 - As noted by the Prosecution, it was not until after 20 November 1997, that it started providing summaries at the request of the Trial Chamber. See the following statement made by the Presiding Judge: “We are going to have a witness brought in, and we will try out a different system. What I mean is that before the witness comes in, whether it be for the Prosecution and then if it goes well this will apply to the Defence as well, which means that before the witness comes in, the Prosecutor might tell us very quickly what he expects from the witness.” T 4063 (20 Nov. 1997).
505 - Rule 65ter was adopted during the twenty-fourth plenary session held from 11-13 July 2001 (26 July 2001) (IT/32/Rev.21).
506 - See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No.: IT-95-14-PT, Final Trial Brief (Under Seal), 22 July 1999, pp. 91-262; AT 606 (16 Dec. 2003).
507 - Hereinafter “Rule 68.”
508 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 114, 120. This ground of appeal was the Sixth Ground in the Appellant’s Brief.
509 - The motion refers to the testimony of Colonel Carter, General Dzemal Merdan, and Nasiha Neslanovic, as examples of evidence which in light of the allegedly conflicting arguments advanced by the Prosecution in the Appellant’s case concerning the command of special military units responsible for the commission of criminal acts, should be deemed exculpatory under Rule 68. Production Motion, pp. 5-6.
510 - On 28 December 2000, the Appellant filed the “Appellant’s Motion Requesting Assistance of the Appeals Chamber in Gaining Access to Non-Public Transcripts and Exhibits” whereby he requested that the Appeals Chamber confer with the Trial Chambers in the Furundzija, Aleksovski, Kupreskic, and Kordic and Cerkez cases, in order to grant the Appellant access to non-public transcripts and exhibits. This motion was the object of a number of decisions. See Annex A to this Judgement.
511 - Second Rule 115 Motion (Public redacted version), p. 5.
512 - None of these exhibits were admitted as additional evidence on appeal pursuant to Rule 115. See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No.: IT-95-14-A, Decision on Evidence, 31 Oct. 2003.
513 - Second Rule 115 Motion (Public redacted version), p. 6, n. 4.
514 - Second Rule 115 Motion (Public redacted version), p. 6, n. 4.
515 - The Prosecution sought the release of materials from another case.
516 - The Prosecution requested the Appeals Chamber to forward its request to a Trial Chamber.
517 - The composition of the bench was the following: Judge Hunt, Judge Mumba, and Judge Wald.
518 - The total volume of the material originating from the seized collections and the Croatian archives amounted to 1,421,753 pages and the total number of potentially relevant documents which required an initial review was 24,811.
519 - Sixty-five binders of material were identified as a result of the Rule 68 searches conducted by the Prosecution. The material was reviewed for the purposes of the Blaskic and Kordic and Cerkez cases simultaneously.
520 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 121.
521 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 121.
522 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 121-123. The Appellant submits that these examples are representative of a much larger body of evidence that he has presented to the Appeals Chamber through his Second Rule 115 Motion, which he incorporates by reference.
523 - Hereinafter “Exhibit 2, Exhibit 16 and Exhibit 25.”
524 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 123.
525 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 123.
526 - Brief in Reply, para. 107.
527 - Brief in Reply, para. 108.
528 - Brief in Reply, para. 108.
529 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.82.
530 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.82.
531 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.84 (referring to the Blaskic 26 September 2000 Decision, paras. 37, 38).
532 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.88. The Prosecution had disclosed 806 documents under Rule 68 up to the time of the filing of the Respondent’s Brief.
533 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.90.
534 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 4.90-4.91.
535 - During the trial in this case, Rule 68 read as follows: “The Prosecutor shall, as soon as practicable, disclose to the defence the existence of evidence known to the Prosecutor which in any way tends to suggest the innocence or mitigate the guilt of the accused or may affect the credibility of prosecution evidence.”
536 - “Rule 68 performs an important function…[i]t forms part of the [P]rosecution’s duty as ministers of justice assisting in the administration of justice…The [P]rosecution’s obligation under Rule 68 is not a secondary one…it is as important as the obligation to prosecute.” Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Decision on Motions to Extend for Filing Appellants’ Briefs, Case No.: IT-95-14/2-A, 11 May 2001, para. 14.
537 - See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No.: IT-95-14, Decision on Production of Discovery Materials, 27 Jan. 1997 (“Blaskic 27 January 1997 Decision”), para. 50.1.
538 - See Prosecutor v. Brdjanin and Talic, Case No.: IT-99-36-T, Decision on Motion for Relief from Rule 68 Violations by the Prosecutor and for Sanctions to be Imposed Pursuant to Rule 68bis and Motion for Adjournment While Matters Affecting Justice and a Fair Trial Can be Resolved, 30 Oct. 2002 (“Brdjanin and Talic 30 October 2002 Decision”), para. 30.
539 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 180.
540 - Blaskic 26 September 2000 Decision, para. 32.
541 - See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Opinion Further to the Decision of the Trial Chamber Seized of the Case the Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez Dated 12 November, Case No.: IT-95-14-T, dated 16 December 1998 and filed on 22 December 1998, p. 3. In the same decision, the Trial Chamber stated:“…the Prosecution remains obligated at all times to disclose to the Defence any material which might, wholly or in part, exculpate the accused or infringe on the credibility of the exculpatory material…the fact that a witness would enjoy protective measures does not relieve the Prosecutor of this obligation…” (p. 5). In another decision, the same Trial Chamber determined that the Prosecution’s disclosure obligations pursuant to Rule 68, and the exculpatory character of confidential documents, take precedence over their confidential nature insofar as the protection of witnesses is maintained or increased. See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Decision on the Prosecution and Defence Motions Dated 25 January 1999 and 25 March 1999 Respectively, Case No.: IT-95-14-T, 28 Apr. 1999, p. 4.
542 - Blaskic 27 January 1997 Decision, para. 50.2; Brdjanin and Talic 30 October 2002 Decision, para. 23.
543 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 153 (s omitted).
544 - Brdjanin and Talic 30 October 2002 Decision, para. 23.
545 - The Appellant refers to Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case No.: IT-95-14/2-A, Decision on Motion by Prosecution for Variation of Time Limit to File a Response to an Application by the Appellants and Permitting Further Response to be Filed, 27 July 2001 (“Kordic 27 July 2001 Decision”), para. 5.
546 - Appellant’s Brief, para. 122; Brief in Reply, para. 109.
547 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.94.
548 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.95.
549 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.95.
550 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.95. The Prosecution pointed out that, since it was still reviewing relevant material from different collections, including the ABiH military archive, in order to ensure compliance with Rule 68 on appeal, further material might still be disclosed to the Appellant before the hearing on appeal.
551 - Kordic 27 July 2001 Decision, para. 5.
552 - Declaration of Robert William Reid, dated 1 May 2002, submitted as Annex A to the Respondent’s Brief.
553 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 197.
554 - A distinction must be drawn between this case and the Krstic case, where the Appeals Chamber found that the Prosecution did take an inordinate amount of time before disclosing Rule 68 material. In that case, the said material was not always identified as exculpatory; some of the disclosure took place over two years after the Prosecution came into possession of the evidence, material had been discovered while the trial was still ongoing, and discovery occurred before the commencement of the Defence’s case in chief.
555 - AT 295 (9 Dec. 2003).
556 - AT 292, 347-348 (9 Dec. 2003).
557 - Counsel for the Appellant submitted: “The relevance, Your Honours, is this witness told the Prosecutor's office in '96, in substance what he's told Your Honours today. The Prosecutor's office suppressed that information from the Blaskic Defence. They used it in the Kordic Trial, continued to suppress it, and to this day they will not produce the statement that they took from this man in 1996. They won't give him a copy and they won't produce it to us, and that needs to be part of the record here.” AT 299-300 (9 Dec. 2003).
558 - AT 300 (9 Dec. 2003).
559 - AT 300-301 (9 Dec. 2003).
560 - AT 305 (9 Dec. 2003).
561 - AT 329-331 (9 Dec. 2003).
562 - AT 346 (9 Dec. 2003).
563 - AT 363-364 (9 Dec. 2003).
564 - AT 361 (9 Dec. 2003).
565 - AT 361 (9 Dec. 2003).
566 - AT 727, 728 (16 Dec. 2003).
567 - AT 364 (9 Dec. 2003).
568 - AT 364 (9 Dec. 2003).
569 - AT 803 (17 Dec. 2003).
570 - AT 803 (17 Dec. 2003).
571 - T 9134-9135 (3 June 1998).
572 - Ex. H1, p. 6.
573 - See Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 187. “…where an accused has been prejudiced by a breach of Rule 68, that prejudice may be remedied where appropriate through the admission of additional evidence on appeal under Rule 115.”
574 - The date is omitted for the purpose of protecting the witness.
575 - See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Decision on Evidence, Case No.: IT-95-14-A, 31 Oct. 2003.
576 - AT 723 (16 Dec. 2003).
577 - The date is omitted for the purpose of protecting the witness.
578 - See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Decision on Evidence, Case No.: IT-95-14-A, 31 Oct. 2003.
579 - AT 724 (16 Dec. 2003).
580 - AT 729 (16 Dec. 2003).
581 - See Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 153.
582 - Hereinafter “Witness Merdan.”
583 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 122-123.
584 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.96.
585 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.97.
586 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.97.
587 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.99.
588 - Brief in Reply, para. 109 (referring to Kordic and Cerkez, T 12,706).
589 - Brief in Reply, para. 109 (referring to Kordic and Cerkez, T 12,706).
590 - Hereinafter “Witness Carter.”
591 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 123.
592 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 4.100-4.101.
593 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 4.102.
594 - AT 724 (16 Dec. 2003).
595 - AT 726 (16 Dec. 2003).
596 - The Kordic and Cerkez trial lasted from April 1999 until December 2000.
597 - Public Version of Declaration of Andrew M. Paley in Support of Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 7 Mar. 2002.
598 - Blaskic 26 September 2000 Decision, para. 37. The letter referred to in this paragraph requests the disclosure of Rule 68 material not previously disclosed to the Defence, and notes that it had come to the attention of Counsel for the Appellant that in the Kordic and Cerkez case, the Prosecution had taken the position that Kordic was the central military and political power in Central Bosnia, and had direct control over certain HVO special units and the Military Police; the letter states that “any information that suggests such theses is per se exculpatory with regard to” the Appellant.
599 - Institute for War and Peace Reporting Tribunal Update 151, 8-13 Nov. 1999, contained in the Production Motion, Exhibit C.
600 - Second Rule 115 Motion (Public redacted version), p. 27. The confidential version was filed on 18 October 2001.
601 - “… a prerequisite for the remedy sought on appeal for breaches of Rule 68 is proof of consequential prejudice to the Defence.” Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 199.
602 - Blaskic 26 September 2000 Decision, para. 38.
603 - Blaskic 26 September 2000 Decision, para. 46.
604 - The Appeals Chamber notes that there is no precedent regarding sanctions imposed by Chambers pursuant to Rule 68bis. See Brdjanin and Talic 30 October 2002 Decision, whereby the Trial Chamber did not decide on sanctions to be imposed on the Prosecution for failing to fulfil its disclosure obligations and instructed the Prosecution to verify the exculpatory material disclosed to the Defence in the form of summaries and to disclose the redacted transcripts falling within the purview of Rule 68; See also Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 214, wherein the Appeals Chamber found that there was a Rule 68 breach, yet it did not impose a sanction pursuant to Rule 68bis.
605 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 206.
606 - See Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez, Decision on Motions to Extend Time for Filing Appellant Briefs, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, 11 May 2001, para. 14.
607 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 19. This ground of appeal was the Second Ground of Appeal in the Appellant’s Brief.
608 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 19 (where the Appellant refers to a newly discovered SIS Report prepared on 1 January 1994, describing the Appellant as being “one of the few in Central Bosnia who have not dirtied their hands and involved themselves in shady dealings which to a large extent even exceed the bounds of crime.” Ex. 6 to the First Rule 115 Motion).
609 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 20. Ex. 14 to the Second Rule 115 Motion (war diary).
610 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 20-21.
611 - Brief in Reply, para. 25.
612 - D269 tendered as a Defence Exhibit at trial, is an order dated 16 April 1993 issued by the Appellant at 0130 hours, and also referred to as the “third order” in the Trial Judgement.
613 - D267 tendered as a Defence Exhibit at trial, is an order dated 15 April 1993 issued by the Appellant at 1000 hours, and also referred to as the “first order” in the Trial Judgement.
614 - Brief in Reply, para. 26. D268 tendered as a Defence Exhibit at trial, is an order dated 15 April 1993 issued by the Appellant at 1545 hours, and also referred to as the “second order” in the Trial Judgement.
615 - Brief in Reply, para. 28 (referring to Ex. 2 to the Second Rule 115 Motion).
616 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.113, 2.114.
617 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.119.
618 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.145.
619 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 21.
620 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 21-22.
621 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 24.
622 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 25.
623 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 25.
624 - Also referred to in this Judgement as the Vitez Brigade.
625 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 26.
626 - Respondent’s Brief para. 2.122.
627 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.123.
628 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.124.
629 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.125.
630 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.126. See also para. 2.144.
631 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.127.
632 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.143.
633 - Brief in Reply, para. 30.
634 - Brief in Reply, para. 31.
635 - Brief in Reply, para. 32.
636 - Supplemental Brief, para. 27.
637 - Ex. 12 to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 13 to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion.
638 - Supplemental Brief, para. 29 (referring to PA12 which he submits is the flipside of Ex. 12 to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion).
639 - AT 593 (16 Dec. 2003).
640 - AT 734-735 (16 Dec. 2003).
641 - AT 745-749 (17 Dec. 2003).
642 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 26 (referring to the Trial Judgement, para. 401).
643 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 26. The Appellant also refers to an intelligence report from the Croatian archives which lends support to the assertion that the Viteska Brigade was not involved in the crimes at Ahmici. Ex. 14 to the First Rule 115 Motion.
644 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 28 (referring to Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 691, and Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, paras. 213, 214).
645 - Supplemental Brief, paras. 19, 20. Ex. 14 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 14 to the Second Rule 115 Motion (War Diary), p. 70 (record of call by Mario Cerkez at 0900 responding to the Appellant’s orders to defend against shooting coming from the Vitez fire station).
646 - Supplemental Brief, paras. 21, 22 (referring to PA 6, PA 8, and PA 10). The Appellant argues that in this exchange between Mario Cerkez and Appellant, there is no reference whatsoever to undertaking crimes against civilians, but instead only an evaluation of ABiH resistance. He asserts that this evidence shows that he issued a generic order to Cerkez to capture all four of the listed villages (Donja Veceriska, Ahmici, Sivrino Selo and Vrhovine) without in any way singling out Ahmici, “even as the massacre at Ahmici was not replicated anywhere else – further proof that the Appellant did not order that crime” and submits that the Trial Chamber in the Kordic and Cerkez case heard the same evidence and concluded that there was no involvement of the Viteska Brigade in the initial attack on Ahmici. Id., para. 23, n. 8.
647 - Supplemental Brief, para. 24.
648 - AT 599-600 (16 Dec. 2003).
649 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.130-132.
650 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.148.
651 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.152 (referring to Kordic Judgement, para. 691). The Appeals Chamber notes that this finding is currently being appealed by the Prosecution in the Kordic and Cerkez case.
652 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.153 (referring to Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 213).
653 - PA 6: Report sent at 1000 hours on 16 April 1993 by Mario Cerkez, Commander of the Viteska Brigade which informs the Appellant about the situation in his area of responsibility, indicating: “Pursuant to your order no. 01-04-243/93… Our forces are advancing on Donja Veceriska whose fall is imminent, and in Ahmici…” PA 7: Order issued by the Appellant at 1035 hours on 16 April 1993 addressed to the commander of the Vitez Brigade, which reads: “Capture the villages of Donja Veceriska, Ahmici, Sivrino Selo and Vrhovine completely.” PA 8: Report addressed to the Commander of Central Bosnia signed by Mario Cerkez (sometime between 1035 and 1400 hours) on 16 April 1993, where he informs about further combat operations as instructed by the Appellant: “The village of Donja Veceriska is 70% done… The village of Ahmici is also 70% done and we have arrested 14 who are accommodated in weekend houses in Nadioci village.” PA 10: Report signed by the Appellant at 1400 hours on 16 April 1993, in which he responds to PA 8 sent by Mario Cerkez. The report reads: “Continue the activities described under item 1 of your report.” (Item 1 of that report concerns the taking of Donja Veceriska and Ahmici.)
654 - AT 745-748 (17 Dec. 2003).
655 - Hereinafter “Kordic.”
656 - Ex. 1 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 4 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 6 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 13 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 1 to the Second Rule 115 Motion (also referred to as the MUP Report). Appellant’s Brief, pp. 33-35. See also Supplemental Brief, para. 13.
657 - D267, D268, and D269.
658 - Referring to T 18,481 and 18,482-18,495 (25 Feb. 1999).
659 - The Appellant refers to his testimony and the War Diary (Ex. 14 to the Second Rule 115 Motion), which he argues makes clear that he attended only one such meeting, and contrary to the inference in the MUP Report, the meeting occurred in the Appellant’s headquarters in the Hotel Vitez, and not in the post office in Busovaca; See also Ex. 1 to the Second Rule 115 Motion (MUP report). Appellant’s Brief, pp. 34, 35.
660 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 36.
661 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 36.
662 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 36.
663 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 37, 38. The Appellant refers to the following orders submitted as trial exhibits which targeted “risk factors” that he was aware of: D346, D347, D208, P456/12, and D211. The Appellant refers to orders he issued to protect civilians: D336, D77, D43, D44, D149, D362, D39, D147, D79, D370, P456/37, D374, D371, D373, and D376.
664 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.169 (referring to Trial Judgement, paras. 474, 487). See also Brief in Reply, para. 36.
665 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.171.
666 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.162.
667 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.163.
668 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.165.
669 - Trial Judgement, para. 386.
670 - Trial Judgement, para. 385.
671 - Trial Judgement, para. 400.
672 - Trial Judgement, para. 410.
673 - Trial Judgement, para. 442.
674 - Trial Judgement, paras. 443, 465. Only paragraph 463 in the section of the Trial Judgement entitled “The accused’s control over the Military Police” uses the term de facto authority, in contrast with the term “command authority” used in the finding.
675 - D267, D268, and D269.
676 - D193: Military Intelligence Service report addressed to the Nikola Subic Zrinski Brigade and the SIS in Busovaca. The report mentions that the BH Army might attempt to launch an attack on Ahmici. The relevant part of the report reads: “The BH Army may attempt through an adroit manoeuvre, to evade HVO monitoring in Cajdras by crossing the territory under their control, along the Zenica-Vrazale-Dobriljeno (756) -Vrhovine axis, and launch an attack on Ahmici (in order to cut off Busovaca and Vitez)…”
677 - Trial Judgement, para. 433.
678 - Trial Judgement, para. 434.
679 - Trial Judgement, para. 435 (s omitted).
680 - Trial Judgement, para. 437. See also para. 435, where the Trial Chamber states: “The order indicated that the forces of the Military Police Fourth Battalion, the N.S. Zrinski unit and the civilian police would also take part in the combat.”
681 - Trial Judgement, para. 437.
682 - Trial Judgement, para. 437.
683 - Trial Judgement, para. 437. See also para. 411.
684 - Trial Judgement, para. 438.
685 - Trial Judgement, para. 405.
686 - For this test, see Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 30.
687 - Ex. 12 to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion, which is an order issued by 3rd Corps Commander Enver Hadžihasanovic to the 325th Mountain Brigade on 16 April 1993, states that:
…the 1st Battalion of the 303rd Mountain Brigade/ has been sent to the Kuber- Saracevica sector and has occupied the left Kicin- right Saracevica line to depth of tt/trig point/ 567 with the task to organize the defence on the line reached and be in readiness to assist our forces in the villages of Putis, Jelinak, Loncari, Nadioci and Ahmici, and in the event of an attack by HVO units, to switch to a resolute counterattack along the Nadioci-Sivrino Selo axis.

The document also recounts that 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade
…has been sent to the Ahmici village sector with the task to organize and carry out a march and arrive in the Ahmici village sector, where it is to assist our forces in the defence and organize the defence and be in readiness to carry out an infantry attack on the Ahmici – Santici - Dubravica axis.

Ex. 13 to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion is Order no. 518/93 issued by Commander Asim Koricic addressed to the 7th Muslim Brigade on 16 April 1993, which pursuant to order no. 02/33-872 issued by the 3rd Corps Commander issued on the same date, instructs:
One company from the 2/2nd Battalion/ of the 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade/ shall be dispatched along Bilmisce -Gornja Zenica- Urije- Saracevica- elevation 860-Ahmici axis, with the task of reaching the village of Ahmici as soon as possible and joining in combat operations. The marching column is to be properly secured and ready to fight any HVO forces that have been either infiltrated or left behind. The march shall be carried out on foot with absolute secrecy of movement, the utmost effort, a high level of combat readiness and strict military discipline. Upon arrival in the waiting area, i.e. the general area of the village of Ahmici, make a detailed evaluation of the situation and get an idea of the combat operations; if necessary, introduce the unit into combat operations to support the forces carrying out defence and organise the defence and be prepared to repel an enemy attack and launch a counter-attack along the Ahmici - Santici - Dubravica axis.

The Appeals Chamber notes that at trial, the Appellant invoked the presence of units of the 325th ABiH Mountain Brigade in Ahmici and the neighbouring villages and in support he proffered Ex. D192.
D192: Military Intelligence situation report addressed to the Viteska Brigade Command dated 10 April 1993 which refers to the 4th battalion of the 325 Mountain brigade. Relevant parts read as follows: “-4th battalion: Its command post is in Poculica, Prnjavor and Vrhovine, one for G.Dubravica, Tolovici and the village of Selo and one for Pirici, Ahmici, Santici and Nadioci. The total number of soldiers is 500.”
With respect to this evidence, the Trial Chamber, at para. 404, concluded that:
… documents submitted in support of that assertion [the presence of the 325th ABiH Mountain Brigade) mention only the village of Ahmici with no further details as to the number of soldiers, the amount of equipment there or the precise location of their headquarters. Moreover, the “defense” orders issued by the accused on the eve of the attack did not mention the presence of the 325th Brigade at all. Those orders, and in particular the order issued on 15 April at 15:45 hours, only refer to the threat which the seventh Muslim Brigade allegedly posed.
Witness BA5 testified:
Q. Can you tell me: The village of Ahmici, which area staff of the Territorial Defence did it belong, or which Territorial Defence staff was this unit in the village of Ahmici subordinate to?
A. They belonged to the area Territorial Defence staff of Dubravica and Sivrino Selo, and it had a platoon of 30, 35 people, maximum. And they were armed with army rifles and with hunting rifles. Not all of them. 25 to 30 rifles, that's what they had. …On the 20th of October, 1992, a roadblock was set up by the Territorial Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Vitez-Busovaca road. ….The purpose [of the roadblock] was to make it impossible for the HVO units to move from Kresevo, Fojnica, Kiseljak, and Busovaca…
Q. Why was the roadblock set up in Ahmici?
A. Because of the lay of the land, the main road leading from Busovaca to Vitez and Travnik passes through there.
Q. So military reasons dictated that this roadblock be set up there?
A. Yes, yes. That's where the terrain was the most favourable for a roadblock. AT 510-511 (11 Dec. 2003).
688 - Trial Judgement, para. 437.
689 - Trial Judgement, para. 474.
690 - Trial Judgement, para. 474.
691 - Trial Judgement, para. 495.
692 - Witness BA1 testified that Exhibits D267, PA12, and D269 are consistent with D193 (military intelligence report dated 14 April 1993 warning that the ABiH may attempt to launch an attack on Ahmici in order to cut off Busovaca and Vitez) and the threat assessed in the report. He stated that nothing in Exhibits D267, PA12, and D269 is inconsistent with the notion that the Military Police unit in question was merely attached to the Appellant’s command and that they are all legal orders. He also testified that D269 is not an order to attack. AT 210-214 (8 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session).
Witness BA3 testified that after having received D193 if he had been the Appellant, he would have issued the same preparatory combat order (D267). With respect to D269, he testified that it is a legal military order which is only addressed to the commander of the Viteska Brigade and the Special Purpose Unit Trvtko, and does not cover the territory of Ahmici. He pointed out that in most armies it is customary to issue orders which cover the neighbouring units on the left and right flank. With respect to PA 12, BA3 testified that it is defensive in nature, and quite logical in light of D193. AT 391-396 (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session). Regarding the nature of “offensive” orders generally, the witness testified that defence combat operations cannot be simultaneously offensive but that once the defensive operation has been completed, then, following orders of the superior, an offensive may be launched. AT 465 (10 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session).
693 - Trial Judgement, para. 400.
694 - Trial Judgement, para. 440.
695 - Ex. D245.
696 - Ex. P691 and P692, dated 24 and 27 June 1994, respectively.
697 - Trial Judgement, paras. 397-399.
698 - Witnesses G, H, and Zec, referred to in the Trial Judgement, para. 401.
699 - Trial Judgement, para. 401 (referring to T 2410 rectius 24100), quoted and accepted for the purposes of this case only.
700 - AT 598 (16 Dec. 2003) (Private Session). The Appeals Chamber notes that the testimony in question reads as follows: “I do not have any information, or rather; I did not receive any information on the extent to which they cooperated with the [M]ilitary [P]olice, if at all. My assumption can only be that they had to cooperate with the [M]ilitary [P]olice if they were there.” T 24100 (23 June 1999) (Closed Session).
701 - Ex. 13 to the First Rule 115 Motion. Hand-written report from the Department of Defence, Croatian Community Herceg-Bosna, dated 8 June 1993, based on interviews with wounded individuals then currently located in a hospital in Split. The document blames the Jokers and Ljubicic for the Ahmici massacre. The report also identifies at least one other individual (“Zoran Krišto”) as claiming to have “bombed the mosque in Ahmici.”
Ex. 14 to the First Rule 115 Motion. Report from the Croatian Information Service dated 21 March 1994, addressed to Franjo Tudjman and signed by the Director of the HIS, Miroslav Tudjman. The report states that the attack on Ahmici was carried out by the Jokers Special Purpose police unit under the command of Vlado Cosic and Pasko Ljubicic, as well as a group of criminals released from Kaonik prison. The report addresses the alleged participation of the Viteska Brigade, and its commander, Mario Cerkez in the Ahmici massacre. The report states that Cerkez was not involved in the massacre in the village of Ahmici, and that he had no influence in these events.
Ex.14 to the Second Rule 115 Motion (War Diary) at p. 70, record of call by Mario Cerkez at 0900 hours responding to the Appellant’s orders to defend against shooting coming from the Vitez fire station.
Ex. 1 to the Second Rule 115 Motion:
The aim of this operation [Ahmici massacre] was to scare the Muslim population into moving out of the area…

…several units participated in the attack on Ahmici:

The Jokeri/ Jokers/ as part of the 4th battalion of the HVO VP/military police/ (about 60 people under the command of A. FURUNDZIJA, operated from the direction of the village of Nadioci).

The 4th battalion of the HVO from Posusje commanded by Pasko LJUBICIC,

Miroslav BRALO aka Cicko also participated in the attack and committed crimes without anyone’s orders and did not belong to any unit,

The unit of Zarko ANDRIC aka Zuti. Parts of other units of the HVO Central Bosnia Operative Zone participated in the conflict…

Following increased kidnappings, robberies and skirmishes begun by the Muslim forces and because of the danger that these forces might sever communications between Vitez and Busovaca, a decision was taken by the military leadership of the Central Bosnia Operative Zone, which was then headed by General BLASKIC, that the HVO would attack the Muslims first on the Vitez-Busovaca axis in order to create a security belt against the Muslims. This decision was based on previous experiences of Muslim attacks in Travnik where they attacked first and gained a great advantage in later combat activity, or acquired a relatively large swathe of territory for combat operations.

General BLASKIC issued a written command which ordered that the aforementioned communications must be relieved at all costs but in a manner by which they would occupy the hills above the village. According to the order, the village [Ahmici] should have been entered if armed resistance was offered from a house or another building. In such an instance, the command read, they could open fire on the building from which the shooting was coming, but only to the extent necessary to neutralise the armed resistance. It was specifically ordered that houses and buildings which offered no resistance should be avoided and that during the first phase of the operation, until the positions in the hills overlooking the village had been occupied, they should not be entered. This order was also received by Mario CERKEZ, commander of the HVO brigade. (pp. 12, 13)

The direct commanders in the field who carried out the order issued were Vlado COSIC, Pasko LJUBICIC and Vlado SANTIC…

…Pasko LJUBICIC coordinated the attack on Ahmici using hand-held radio equipment. Tihomir BLASKIK was also present in the area during the attack itself…(p. 13)

Ex. 1 to the First Rule 115 Motion: The relevant parts read as follows: …The attack on the village of Ahmici itself was carried out by the Jokers JPN/special purposes unit/ police unit under the command of Vlado COSIC [sic] and the commander of the regional military police Pasko LJUBICIC, and also by an attached squad of criminals who had been released from the Kaonik prison and included in combat operations.

702 - Final Trial Brief, Under Seal, 22 July 1999, p. 211 (“Final Trial Brief”) (referring to the testimony of General Hadzihasanovic for support. T 23237 (9 June 1999)). It is worth noting that the Appellant also submitted that Kordic exercised complete military authority with regard to Busovaca. Ibid., pp. 381-385.
703 - AT 773 (17 Dec. 2003) (referring to Exhibits PA 3 and P456/109).
PA 3: Report dated 26 September 1993 drafted by KUM (Godfather) sent by the SIS Center in Travnik/Vitez and addressed to Ivica Lucic from the Security Sector, Administration Mostar. The document reports on the political conflict between Busovaca and Vitez as having a negative effect upon the combat readiness and the defence. The report requests the removal of Ante Sliskovic and reads:
“In the so-called Busovaca side the hierarchical order is the following:
1. Dario Kordic…

a) Tihomir Blaskic
b) Ignjac Kostroman…
c) Anto Puljic…”

See also P456/109: The minutes from the meeting of Croatian Defence Councils in the municipalities of Central Bosnia on 22 September 1992, which indicate that Kordic, Valenta, Blaskic and Kostroman were members of the working presidency.
704 - Trial Judgement, paras. 118, 341, 358, 359, 360, 387, 538.
705 - Ex. 13 to the First Rule 115 Motion.
Ex. 1 to the Second Rule 115 Motion (MUP report). Relevant parts read as follows:
…it is most likely that two meetings were held with the commanders of the military units from this area- the first at 1400 hours in the cellar of the post office in Busovaca (present were Vlado COSIC, assistant commander of the Military Police, Dario KORDIC, Ignac KOSTROMAN, Pasko LJUBICIC, Darko KRALJEVIC and Vlado COSIC [sic] at which BLASKIC issued orders about the attack and the manner of the attack, and the second without BLASKIC… in the evening in KORDIC’s family home. The decision to carry out this massacre was taken at this meeting. However, there is information that one meeting was held during the afternoon in a hotel in Vitez at which BLASKIC was also present. It is possible that this amounts only to confusion over the location of the meeting, but it should nevertheless be checked just as the confusing information regarding the participants of these meetings should. There are statements saying that BLASKIC held this third meeting with the commanders of special-purpose units (Pasko LJUBICIC, Zarko ANDRIC aka Zuti and Marinko ZILIC aka Brzi, a one-time member of the special police in Rijeka, current status being checked). Mario CERKEZ, although invited, did not come. BLASKIC gave instructions for the attack at the meeting, and gave a stark warning forbidding any kind of crimes. (p. 11)
…on the night of 15/16 April 1993 a meeting of an informal group, composed of Ignac KOSTROMAN, Dario KORDIC, Ante SLISKOVIC, Tomo VLAJIC, SLISKOVIC’s deputy Pasko LJUBICIC, Vlado COSIC and Anto FURUNDŽIJA, who wanted conflict with the Muslims at any price, was held at Dario KORDIC’s house. At this meeting it was agreed that an order would be issued to kill the entire male population in Ahmici and to torch the village. (p. 11)
The report recounts that Sliškovic “masterminded the operation in Ahmici” and Ljubicic “coordinated the attack.” (pp. 13-14).
706 - Trial Judgement, para. 493.
Ex. 1 to the First Rule 115 Motion (SIS report):
Sporadic fighting in this area on 15 April 1993 developed into a fierce battle on 16 April 1993, when MOS/Muslim Armed Forces/ attempted to take control of the Vitez-Busovaca road. Our forces responded with counterattack… The attack on the village of Ahmici itself was carried out by the Jokers JPN /special purposes unit/ under the command of Vlado COSIC and the commander of the regional military police Paško LJUBICIC, and also by an attached squad of criminals who had been released from the Kaonik prison and included in combat operations. According to the statement of Zoran KRISTO, who acknowledges that he destroyed the mosque in Ahmici, they paid no attention to age, but killed everyone they encountered. According to our information, Miroslav BRALO aka Cicko from Vitez and Ivica ANTOLOVIC aka Sjano from Zepce displayed extremely uncontrolled and criminal conduct.
707 - Trial Judgement, para. 474.
708 - D347: Order dated 5 November 1992, issued by the Appellant based on the agreement signed with General Merdan. The order commands that all measures be taken to prevent setting fire to the houses of eminent Muslim citizens, warning that the most rigorous measures should be taken against the transgressors.
D204: Report “on the activities of Groups and Individuals acting without the knowledge of the HVO” from the Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade, dated 25 January 1993. Informs about incidents of looting, and robberies by “Herzegovinians.” The report provides some names; however, it is unclear whether they are all members of the Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade. The report states that the perpetrators of many of the crimes had not been identified.
D208: Warning issued by the Appellant on 6 February 1993 following an order issued on 10 January 1993, addressed to all HVO brigades and Military Police Fourth Battalion in connection with occurrences of disturbance of public order, murders, injuries, and opening fires in inhabited places.
D211: Order entitled “Treatment of Persons Inclined towards Criminal and Destructive Conduct” issued by the Appellant on 17 March 1993 addressed to commanders of HVO brigades, the Vitezovi, the Military Police Fourth Battalion, the Chief of the Travnik Police, and the Chief of the Travnik Defence Department. The order commands: (a) to order platoon, company and battalion commanders to assess the conduct of conscripts and name the persons inclined toward destructive and criminal conduct, and (b) that persons prone to disruptive conduct were to turn over their weapons and uniform, by 29 March 1993 (also submitted as P456/16).
709 - See D211. The Appeals Chamber notes that D204, which is the only exhibit that identifies the names of those involved in criminal acts, was sent to the Appellant by the Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade, which brigade was not addressed in D269 and did not participate in the military attack on Ahmici.
710 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 29.
711 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 29, 30. See Ex. 16 to the Second Rule 115 Motion, Ex. 25 to the Second Rule 115 Motion.
712 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 30. See Ex. 10 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 27 to the Second Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 86 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 8 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 12 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 85 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 1 to the First Rule 115 Motion.
713 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.156 (referring to Trial Judgement, para. 440).
714 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.156.
715 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.157 (referring to Trial Judgement, paras. 460-466).
716 - Respondent’s Brief., para. 2.132 (referring to D267 and D268).
717 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.138. See para. 2.43, n. 113.
718 - PA 12: “Combat order on securing section on Kaonik-Dubrave road and repelling enemy attack” dated 16 April 1993 at 0130 hours signed by the Appellant and addressed to the Commander of the 4th MP Battalion Pasko Ljubicic. The order instructs the 4th Military Police unit to block the Ahmici-Nadioci road and prepare for enemy attack; it states that the time of readiness is 05:30 hours. Relevant portions read:
Attack of enemy of probable size of a reinforced platoon is expected in the section of the road Ahmici Nadioci and their aim is to conduct terrorist-sabotage activities and obvious intention to liquidate all HVO members.Task of your of your [sic] unit is to block approaches to the Ahmici-Nadioci road and in case of enemy attack by precision fire with artillery support repel the enemy attack and inflict casualties in man power and technical equipment and materiel [sic] and repel their attack during your counter-attack.
719 - AT 742-743 (17 Dec. 2003).
720 - Supplemental Brief, para. 34.
721 - Supplemental Brief, para. 34. Ex. 8 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 10 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 102 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 14 to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion.
722 - Supplemental Brief, para. 35. Ex.1 to the Second Rule 115 Motion.
723 - Supplemental Brief, para. 36.
724 - Supplemental Brief, para. 37.
725 - Supplemental Brief, para. 38 (referring to Ex. 16 to the Second Rule 115 Motion, which is a chart entitled “Suspected Bosnian Croat Chain of Command” created by the Prosecution in consultation with General Merdan, Deputy, and proffered as evidence by the Prosecution in the Kordic Trial on 19 January 2000. The chart illustrates that the paramilitary special purpose units, including the Jokers, were under the direct command of Dario Kordic. The Appellant argues that this chart reflects the Prosecution’s “candid assessment of the true HVO chain of command in Central Bosnia.”).
726 - AT 814 (17 Dec. 2003).
727 - Supplemental Brief, para. 39.
728 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 40-41. The Appellant testified at trial that beginning at 0530 hours on 16 April 1993, he and the entire CBOZ headquarters staff were forced to take shelter in the basement of the Hotel Vitez due to a continual artillery barrage by the ABiH and that, as a result, he was unaware of the Ahmici massacre until 22 April 1993. T 18912-18917 (11 Mar. 1999), T 22905 (28 May 1999).
729 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 41 (referring to Witness Bell, T 17648 (15 Feb. 1999), Witness Morsink testifying that ECMM did not discover Ahmici until 22 April 1993 when BRITBAT Warriors went through the village, T 24,405-24,407 (6 July 1999)).
730 - Ex. 14 to the Second Rule 115 Motion.
731 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 42. The Appellant claims that the multiple entries in the War Diary regarding his presence in the Hotel Vitez lend support to his argument. He asserts that additional evidence corroborates trial evidence that he was unaware of the crimes committed against civilians as he was trapped in the basement of the Hotel Vitez. Brief in Reply, para. 38 (referring to Ex. 14 to the Second Rule 115 Motion (War Diary), p. 72; the Appellant notes that Ex. 14 also demonstrates that Ljubicic lied to him regarding the events in Ahmici and failed to report the crimes).
732 - Trial Judgement, para. 479.
733 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 42. Ex. 14 to the Second Rule 115 Motion, pp. 72, 73. The War Diary recounts that at 0950 hours, the Appellant received a phone call from M. Batinic, and that at the same time, Colonel Stewart arrived at the Hotel Vitez and met with M. Prskalo, another staff member.
734 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 42. The Appellant had argued that he would have had no reason to believe that the sounds of gunfire or smoke arising from the direction of Ahmici (had he noticed them) were evidence of anything but lawful military combat. In support, he submits Ex. 2 to the Second Rule 115 Motion.
735 - Supplemental Brief, para. 32. In support of his argument, he refers to the following exhibits proffered by the Prosecution as material in rebuttal: PA 6, PA 8, and the following admitted additional evidence: Ex. 12 to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion, Ex. 13 to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion.
736 - AT 584-586 (16 Dec. 2003).
737 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.174.
738 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.175.
739 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.175 (referring to Trial Judgement, para. 435).
740 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.176.
741 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.177 (referring to P690 (BRITBAT reporting mortar fire at 0605 hours)).
742 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.177.
743 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.180 (referring to Appellant’s Brief, p. 45).
744 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.180.
745 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.181 (referring to Prosecutor’s Final Trial Brief, RP A11614).
746 - AT 424 (10 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session).
747 - AT 811 (17 Dec. 2003) (Private Session) (referring to T 24,099, 24,152 (Closed Session); T 23,756 (Witness Stewart); and T 17,625 (Witness Bell)).
748 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 39.
749 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 39.
750 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 43.
751 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.77-81.
752 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.82.
753 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.83.
754 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.86.
755 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.89.
756 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 43-44.
757 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.185.
758 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.186.
759 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.187.
760 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 44-46.
761 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.186 (referring to exhibit P456/58).
762 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 46.
763 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 47.
764 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 47-48.
765 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 50.
766 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 51-52.
767 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 52.
768 - Brief in Reply, para. 37.
769 - Brief in Reply, para. 39.
770 - Supplemental Brief, para. 42.
771 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.190-2.194.
772 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 53-56. Ex. 1 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 1 to the Second Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 4 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 13 to the First Rule 115 Motion.
773 - AT 608-614 (16 Dec. 2003).
774 - AT 711 (16 Dec. 2003).
775 - AT 795-796 (16 Dec. 2003) (Private Session). The Appeals Chamber notes that the text of Ex. D410, which cannot be reproduced due to the confidential nature of the document, differs considerably from that of Ex. 1 to the First Rule 115 Motion.
776 - AT 680 (16 Dec. 2003).
777 - AT 680 (16 Dec. 2003).
778 - AT 688 (16 Dec. 2003).
779 - Trial Judgement, para. 495(emphasis added).
780 - Trial Judgement, paras. 453-466.
781 - Trial Judgement, para. 440.
782 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 256. See Chapter III (B) (3) in this Judgement.
783 - Trial Judgement, para. 465.
784 - Trial Judgement, paras. 459-460.
785 - The Trial Judgement stated that Witness HH testified that Pasko Ljubicic never refused to carry out any of the Appellant’s orders. T 6917 (25 Feb. 1998) (Closed Session).
The Appeals Chamber notes that Witness HH testified that all the knowledge that he had about the command relationship between the Appellant and Pasko Ljubicic came directly from Pasko Ljubicic, but that he never saw any decrees or commands of higher level bodies regarding their mutual relationship. He also testified that Pasko Ljubicic told the members of the 4th MP Battalion that that they should execute all orders received from the Appellant and his staff. AT 6911 (25 Feb. 1998) (Closed Session).
Witness HH also testified that even though he never saw orders addressed to Ljubicic issued by the Appellant, he knew that Pasko Ljubicic never refused to carry those orders out, because the 4th MP never refused to carry out any commands addressed to them. T 6917 (25 Feb. 1998) (Closed Session).
786 - Trial Judgement, para. 463.
787 - Trial Judgement, paras. 464, 465.
788 - T 1905-1907 (22 Aug. 1997).
789 - AT 707-708 (16 Dec. 2003).
790 - Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 224.
791 - Trial Judgement, para. 459; See also para. 460.
792 - Trial Judgement, para. 463 ( omitted).
793 - Ex. 36 to the Second Rule 115 Motion, pp. 12,866-12,867. This account was confirmed by the testimony of Witness BA3, AT 375-376 (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session).
794 - AT 176, 177 (8 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session).
795 - Q. “Was your view an outsider view or was your view on this very important subject commonly held among the ECMM monitors and professional staff? [A.] I would describe it as conventional wisdom that those were reporting to Kordic.” AT 295, (9 Dec. 2003).
796 - Ex H1, p. 6.
797 - AT 347-348 (9 Dec. 2003).
798 - AT 225-226 (8 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session).
799 - AT 377-378 (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session).
800 - AT 380 (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session.)
801 - AT 485 (10 Dec. 2003).
802 - AT 495-496 (10 Dec. 2003).
803 - Ex. 1 to the Second Rule 115 Motion, p. 7.
804 - Ibid., p. 8. See relevant portions which read as follows:
…The first commander of the military component of the HVO in Central Bosnia was Pasko Ljubicic…In Central Bosnia there were four HVO military formations territorially deployed in Kiseljak, Vitez, Zepce and Vares. These military formations were manned mostly by volunteers and the local population. As a rule they were poorly armed, completely lacked any military organisation and were not coordinated among themselves. The commander of the military formation based in Kiseljak was Ivica RAJIC, in Zepce it was Ivo LOZANCIC, in Vitez it was Pasko LJUBICIC, while in Usora it was JELACA. According to some of our intelligence, the headquarters were not in Usora but in Sarajevo, and were headed by a man named Slavko. Of the aforesaid commanders of operative groups, only the commanders of Usora and Zepce really obeyed BLASKIC’s orders.

The following special units, which were formally under the command of the Assistant Minister for Special Units in the Ministry of Defence of the HR HB Ivica PRIMORAC, but were actually commanded by Dario KORDIC, were active either permanently or temporarily in Central Bosnia:

The Convicts Battalion, under the command of Mladen NALETILIC aka TUTA, whose sub-unit in Mostar was led by Vinko MARTINOVIC aka Stela. The Maturice, under the command of Dominik ILIJASEVIC aka Coma, who were active in Kiseljak. The Vitezovi /Knights/, who operated in the Vitez area under the command of Darko KRALJEVIC.

The Jokeri /Jokers/, under the command of Anto FURUNDZIJA. The Zuti/ Yellow / unit under the command of Zarko ANDRIC aka Zuti.

The Apostoli /Apostles/, a unit from the Travnik area which withdrew to Kiseljak, under the command of Marinko SUNJIC. (p. 8).

The Jokeri/Jokers

The Jokeri unit was a civilian police unit akin to special police or an antiterrorist unit. They were quartered in the so-called “Bungalow”, a small motel near Vitez. The unit mostly consisted of young men from Vitez and Travnik. According to some sources (for example Blazenko RAMLJAK), before the events in Ahmici this unit did not participate in any military operations but engaged in looting abandoned Muslim houses and flats in the towns, seizing vehicles and committing other crimes. Some sources state that KORDIC mostly recruited prison convicts into this unit, and in exchange for being released from prison they had to swear that they would carry absolutely all orders. (emphasis added)

There are some contradictions in statements about who commanded the Jokeri unit, because according to KOSTROMAN they were under Darko KRALJEVIC’s command, while other intelligence indicates that the commander was Anto FURUNDZIJA. KOSTROMAN is probably trying to pin the blame for the crime on KRALJEVIC (according to the available information, KRALJEVIC and his unit did not participate in the attack, just a small number of volunteers whom KORDIC and the others recruited on the eve of the attack.)…(p. 9).
805 - Ibid., p. 9. See relevant portions which read as follows:

The Military Police

At the end of 1992 the Military Police was established. The Central Bosnia area was covered by the 4th Military Police Battalion, which consisted of five companies and eight independent brigade platoons. The entire battalion and the companies were not commanded by the commander of the OZ/ Operative Zone/ or a brigade commander, but by the Military Police Administration at the Ministry of Defence. The independent brigade platoons were commanded by the brigade commanders, i.e. the commanders of the units into which the platoons had been integrated.

The Military Police was restructured in January 1993 so that the brigade platoons were disbanded and three Military Police companies were formed. The entire battalion and the companies were not commanded by the commander of the OZ or a brigade commander, but the Military Police Administration. The chief of the Military Police Administration was Valentin CORIC. …

The first commander of the Military Police was Milijov PETKOVIC and the chief of SIS was Ante Sliskovic. Tihomir BLASKIC was not happy about the establishment of these formations because they were outside his control and he did not command them; they were under the command of the Command of the Ministry of Defence of the HV/? [sic] Croatian Army/, and the HVO Main Staff… (p. 9).
806 - Trial Judgement, para. 477.
807 - Trial Judgement, para. 478.
808 - Trial Judgement, para. 479.
809 - Trial Judgement, para. 482. Witness Stewart, T 23,746 (17 June 1999) (testifying that HVO soldiers tried to keep him from entering Ahmici on 22 Apr. 1993); Witness Baggesen, T 1929-1932 (22 Aug. 1977) (testifying that the HVO roadblock prevented them from entering the village of Ahmici on 16 April); Witness Akhavan, T 5285 (15 Dec. 1997) (testifying that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights team was shot at when it attempted to investigate Ahmici on 2 May 1993); See also Ex. P184, para. 4.
810 - Trial Judgement, paras. 404, 407-409.
811 - Trial Judgement, para. 479.
812 - See Chapter III (B) (2) of this Judgement.
813 - See Chapter III (B) (2) of this Judgement.
814 - See relevant parts of the report which read as follows: …Given the deterioration of relations between the BH Army and HVO Croatian Defence Council units in Zenica and other parts of Central Bosnia, and in accordance with the orders issued, all units of the 7th Muslim Brigade are in a state of readiness.

…7th Muslim Brigade units stationed in Zenica are located at the barracks, and under order strictly confidential no 332/93 of 15 April 1993, soldiers and officers are forbidden from leaving the grounds of the barracks without special permission. …at 0600 hours on 16 April 1993 an artillery attack was launched on Vitez- on parts of the town inhabited by Muslims. The villages of Vranjska, Vecerska and Ahmici were she

lled. Fierce fighting is going on in Ahmici, and Army members have been forced to retreat to reserve positions.
815 - See relevant parts which read as follows:

In accordance with the unfolding events and in connection with the attack by HVO/Croatian Defence Council/ units on units of the BH Army in the zone of responsibility of the 325th bbr and the newly arisen situation, the Corps Command is taking measures with the aim pf assisting our forces and tying down the HVO forces. In the spirit of the Commander’s decision, the following orders have been issued:

…the 1st Battalion of the 303rd Mountain Brigade has been sent to Kuber….with the task to organize the defence …and be in readiness to assist our forces in the villages of Putis, Jelinak, Loncari, Nadioci and Ahmici.

The document also recounts that 7th Muslim Mountain Brigade: …has been sent to the Ahmici village sector with the task to organize and carry out a march and arrive in the Ahmici village sector, where it is to assist our forces in the defence and organize the defence and be in readiness to carry out an infantry attack on the Ahmici – Santici – Dubravica axis.
816 - This meeting is referred to in paragraph 481 of the Trial Judgement.
817 - AT 386-387 (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session). Witness BA 3 also testified that on 16 April 1993, when he reached the crossroads of the main road running from Busovaca towards Vitez near Ahmici in an armed warrior, he could infer that a conflict of some scale was taking place but did not come to the conclusion that a massacre was committed in Ahmici. AT 389-390 (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session).

In cross-examination pursuant to Rule 90(H) of the Rules, the Prosecution suggested (without success) that in an attempt to assist the Appellant’s case, Witness BA 3 lied about the date when he found out about the Ahmici massacre. Counsel for the Prosecution referred to reports from the 3rd Corps dated 17 and 18 April 1993, regarding the massacre but made no reference to specific documents. Witness BA 3 responded that even though the ABiH had available information that the village was on fire, it was impossible to ascertain on those dates the number of people killed and whether war crimes had been committed. AT 423-424 (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session).

Counsel for the Prosecution submitted that as of the night of the 17th or the morning of 18 April 1993, Witness BA3 was in a position to know about the crimes committed in Ahmici. The Prosecution relies on Ex. 22 to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion (ABiH combat report from the commander of the 3rd Corps dated 17 April 1993, sent on 18 April 1993 to the RBH OS/ Armed Forces/ Supreme command staff) which informs that HVO soldiers had attacked the ABiH in the terrain around Vitez and that the population in Ahmici had been massacred. AT 752-754 (17 Dec. 2003).
818 - Trial Judgement, para. 492.
819 - Trial Judgement, para. 493. Where the Trial Chamber notes that the 26 November 1993 SIS report is the “item of evidence most likely to exonerate (the Appellant(.” This report has been admitted pursuant to Rule 115 as Ex. 1 to the First Rule 115 Motion (SIS Report).
820 - Trial Judgement, para. 495.
821 - Trial Judgement, para. 335. See also para. 302.
822 - Trial Judgement, para. 494.
823 - The Trial Chamber emphasizes that the Appellant failed to contact the commander of the Military Police, Paško Ljubicic; he did not take any measures to seal off the area and ensure that evidence was preserved; he did not order an autopsy on any body before it was buried; and he did not attempt to interview any survivors although they were detained at the school in Dubravica.
824 - Trial Judgement, paras. 489, 490, 491.
825 - Trial Judgement, para. 490.
826 - AT 775-776 (17 Dec. 2003).
827 - AT 793-794 (17 Dec. 2003).
828 - T 23810-23812, Witness Stewart (17 June 1999). See also Final Trial Brief, p. 333.
829 - Celebici Judgement, para. 395.
830 - Ex. 1 to the Second Rule 115 Motion. See the following parts:

…Tihomir BLASKIC told Ante SLISKOVIC, chief of the SIS for the Central Bosnia Military District, to carry out an investigation into the incident so that he could send a report to Mostar. SLISKOVIC however, allegedly obstructed the investigation, repeating the theory about the involvement of the Serbs, Muslims and the British “staging” the crime. After the Military Police unit had committed the crime in Ahmici, of which BLASKIC informed Darijo KORDIC by telephone, BLASKIC asked for a report into the incident,

which was compiled and signed by Vlado COSIC on behalf of Pasko LJUBICIC who was the commander of the Military Police. According to the information available, the report does not mention the crime, only the fighting.

There is allegedly a report into the incident at Ahmici from Ivo LUCIC which was sent to the Assistant Minister for Security in BH, and an analytical report by the HIS. These reports are, apparently, incomplete and are only reconstructions of the incidents or summaries of more extensive reports, which should be in the SIS HZ HB/Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna/archive. (p. 14)

The Croatian political leadership had mainly accurate information at its disposal about the extent of the crime, its circumstances, victims, perpetrators, etc… …

On the other hand, based on the premise that the RH is in no way guilty for the war in BH that blame lies entirely with the Muslims and Serbs, and that the international community offered no support to RH, the SIS RH began an investigation into the crimes committed by Muslims and Serbs against Croats in BH. In order to corroborate these crimes, documentation from BH was delivered to the RH and people were prepared for possible testifying in trials in The Hague. Identification papers and other such items were procured for individuals who came to the RH (by Lora, the SIS in Split). However, it is obvious that the analysis for the crime in Ahmici was conducted in parallel and that the documents which are now stored in the offices of the SIS in Split were also transferred from BH to the RH

…The first signs of involvement of individual parts of the Croatian intelligence services in the events and investigation into Ahmici were obvious soon after it became apparent that the BH SIS, that is Ante SLISKOVIC, was conducting the investigation inefficiently…

…Ante GUGIC was also in the areas and later complied an expert report in which there are no details of either the perpetrators or the circumstances of the crime. At the beginning of 1997 operations were started regarding monitoring the trial of General BLASKIC on the basis of an agreement between the then head of the HIS, M. TU\MAN, and the chief of the HIS Department of Operations Ivo LUCIC. It was planned that this operation would be led by the RH Ministry of Defence, meaning the SIS, and that the MUP/Ministry of the Interior/ and the RH Ministry of Justice would assist the SIS as necessary. However, this was not implemented and the operation remained under the SIS which nominated Ante SLISKOVIC as special coordinator for gathering information about people who could be used as witnesses in the trial of BLASKIC. According to unconfirmed information, the HIS also participated in this operation and having processed this information sent its anlyses [sic] to the SIS. (p. 15)

…At the end of September 1998 the lawyer Anto NOBILO began his case for the defence in the trial of General BLASKIC, and soon sought documentation from the SIS which might be of use to the defence, particularly regarding events in Ahmici. However, the SIS did not send the documentation he requested, explaining that the requested investigation report did not exist because no investigation had been carried out.

…While working with witnesses according to unconfirmed information, the SIS coordinator obstructed the work of advocate NOBILO because he had attempted to prove the existence of a parallel chain of command, which did not suit Darijo KORDIC or the people devoted to him since he was deputy to Mate BOBAN, who in turn took his instructions from the HDZ leadership in Zagreb, whose connection to events in BH it was wished to conceal. Because of the aforementioned problems with the SIS coordinator, NOBILO said in public that there were secret indictments from the Hague Tribunal against Pasko Ljubicic and Ante Sliskovic, after which Sliskovic “disappeared.” (p. 16)
831 - Ex. 4 to the First Rule 115 Motion, p. 2. See also Ex. 13 to the First Rule 115 Motion, and Ex. 1 to the First Rule 115 Motion, which informs that the attack on Ahmici was carried out by the Jokers under the command of Vlado COSIC and the commander of the regional Military Police Pasko LJUBICIC, and also by an attached squad of criminals who had been released from the Kaonik prison and included in combat operations.
832 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 56-57. This ground of appeal was part of the second ground of appeal in the Appellant’s Brief.
833 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 57.
834 - Ibid.
835 - Brief in Reply, para. 41.
836 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.197.
837 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.212.
838 - Trial Judgement, paras. 502 and 507.
839 - Trial Judgement, para. 510.
840 - Trial Judgement, para. 497.
841 - Trial Judgement, para. 507. The three attacks were referred to the events of 16 April, 18 April, and 18 July 1993.
842 - There was evidence on appeal showing that the Croatian side was on the defensive in Central Bosnia at least from May through October 1993: Witness Watkins, AT 357-358 (9 Dec. 2003).
843 - Trial Judgement, paras. 343-356.
844 - This disposes of an argument in this vein by the parties: Appellant, AT 616 (16 Dec. 2003); Prosecution, AT 731-734 (16 Dec. 2003).
845 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 58 and p. 59. See also Brief in Reply, para. 42.
846 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 59.
847 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 59.
848 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 61.
849 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 59-60, 61-62.
850 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.218.
851 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.219.
852 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.220.
853 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.221-2.222.
854 - Trial Judgement, para. 529.
855 - Trial Judgement, para. 503.
856 - Witness Watkins, AT 297 (9 Dec. 2003).
857 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 62-63. See also Supplemental Brief, para. 45.
858 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.199.
859 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.205.
860 - Trial Judgement, paras. 514 and 516.
861 - Trial Judgement, para. 516.
862 - See (b) below.
863 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 63-64, p. 65.
864 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 64-65.
865 - Brief in Reply, paras. 43-44.
866 - Brief in Reply, para. 45.
867 - Brief in Reply, para. 46.
868 - Brief in Reply, para. 46.
869 - Brief in Reply, para. 47.
870 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.228.
871 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.229.
872 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.230.
873 - Trial Judgement, para. 509.
874 - Trial Judgement, para. 509.
875 - Trial Judgement, para. 510.
876 - Trial Judgement, para. 510.
877 - Trial Judgement, para. 507.
878 - AT 514 (11 Dec. 2003). It should be noted that the “TO” had a military structure: AT 444 (10 Dec. 2003) (closed session), Witness BA3. See also Ex. 22-25, Fourth Rule 115 Motion: Exhibit 22 is an ABiH combat report, dated 17 April 1993. It notes that the ABiH had a detachment in the town of Vitez with 150 soldiers and approximately 50 military policemen; Exhibit 23 is an ABiH combat report of 19 April 1993, reporting that the ABiH set up a circular defence in the old part of the Vitez town, and had successfully repelled enemy’s attacks; Exhibit 24 is an HVO Main Staff report for 17 April 1993, sent up to Mostar on 18 April l993. It reports that throughout the night, ABiH forces engaged in provocation and regrouping, and that in early morning, they launched combat operations to cut off and seize control of part of the Kaonik and Vitez road, thus encircling Busovaca; and Exhibit 25 is a report from the ABiH 7th Muslim Brigade dated 18 April 1993. It reports that the brigade units overran certain HVO positions, including the HVO Command post, one of its units was fighting in Ahmici in cooperation with other ABiH units and local population, and the enemy suffered heavy losses and a large number of wounded.
879 - AT 545 (11 Dec. 2003). See also AT 515 (11 Dec. 2003), wherein Witness BA5 stated that his units used houses for defence purposes.
880 - Trial Judgement, para. 543.
881 - Witness BA3, AT 390-392 (9 Dec. 2003) (closed session). See also D267.
882 - Trial Judgement, para. 497.
883 - Trial Judgement, para. 510.
884 - Witness BA5, AT 510 (11 Dec. 2003).
885 - Ex. 23-25, Fourth Rule 115 Motion.
886 - Trial Judgement, paras. 499 and 503.
887 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 66. See also Supplemental Brief, para. 47.
888 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.233.
889 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.234.
890 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.235.
891 - Trial Judgement, para. 507.
892 - AT 515 (11 Dec. 2003).
893 - AT 516 (11 Dec. 2003).
894 - Trial Judgement, para. 474.
895 - Trial Judgement, paras. 371 and 383.
896 - Trial Judgement, paras. 375 and 475.
897 - Trial Judgement, paras. 371-378.
898 - See Chapter II (A) of this Judgement, above.
899 - E.g., D267 and D269. See also Supplemental Brief, para. 48; AT 799 (17 Dec. 2003). See also Ex. 14, Second Rule 115 Motion, p. 93 (this exhibit contains the Central Bosnia Operative Zone War Diary for the period 11 January 1993 until 15 May 1993); PA 25 (Darko Kraljevic’s report of 26 April 1993 to the HVO Main Staff which shows that the Vitezovi engaged in fighting on 16-17 April in Stari Vitez, pursuant to the Appellant’s orders).
900 - See this Chapter, section C, below.
901 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 66-67.
902 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 67.
903 - Brief in Reply, para. 53. For support, see Witness Watkins, AT 276-277 (9 Dec. 2003).
904 - Brief in Reply, para. 53. For support, see Witness Watkins, AT 350 (9 Dec. 2003).
905 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.242.
906 - Trial Judgement, para. 505.
907 - Witness BA5, AT 517 (11 Dec. 2003).
908 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 68-69.
909 - AT 620 (16 Dec. 2003).
910 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.244.
911 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.246.
912 - T 18,835-18,836 (10 Mar. 1999); Ex. 96, First Rule 115 Motion (Ex. 96 contains a letter dated 7 May 1993 from the Appellant to the head of the HZHB Defence Department, Bruno Stojic, complaining about the fact that Kraljevic took control of the Kalen petrol station in Vitez and was selling fuel to the HVO at market price); PA 26 (Colonel Primorac’s order of 9 May 1993 to both the Appellant and Darko Kraljevic, which was issued in response to Ex. 96, First Rule 115 Motion regarding the control of the Kalen petrol station, ordering the establishment of a commission to establish the quantity of the fuel at the station, that the station be placed at the disposal of the Vitez HVO Government, and that the Vitezovi be subordinated to the Appellant); Witness BA5, AT 531 (11 Dec. 2003).
913 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 69-70. See also Supplemental Brief, para. 54; AT 622 (16 Dec. 2003).
914 - Brief in Reply, para. 52.
915 - Brief in Reply, para. 52.
916 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.245.
917 - Ex. 10, First Rule 115 Motion (Ex. 10 includes a report from the SIS Chief at Mostar to the Chief of the Croatian Information Services, dated 4 December 1993. Regarding the crimes in Vitez, it reveals that a private company, Vitez Trejd held a monopoly over everything in a local factory, SPS, which was regarded as the main cause for local crimes because of its goods, such as explosives, rocket fuel, weapons, and military equipment. The factory was the conduit for the purchase of weaponry and equipment for the HVO in Central Bosnia. The goods were sold to both Croats and Muslims and high military officers and politicians were involved in such dealings. This document shows that the Appellant was not the only person who could provide explosives that blew up the lorry on 18 April 1993). Also see Ex. 31, Fourth Rule 115 Motion (Ex. 31 contains an SIS report dated 1 July 1993, and describes the role of Darko Kraljevic in the Vitez area and his rejection of the Appellant’s orders. Kraljevic and the SIS Chief threatened the Appellant, who dare not act against them, and they dealt with both Croatia and the Muslim side in explosives and military equipment).
918 - See this Chapter, sections (C)(1) and (C)(2), below.
919 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 77.
920 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 77.
921 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 78.
922 - Brief in Reply, para. 54.
923 - Brief in Reply, para. 54.
924 - Brief in Reply, para. 57.
925 - Brief in Reply, para. 58.
926 - Brief in Reply, para. 59.
927 - Supplemental Brief, para. 56.
928 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.252.
929 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.255.
930 - Chapter VI (A), above.
931 - Witness Djidic, T 1368-1369 (31 Mar. 1997).
932 - T 19,496-19,508 (24 Mar. 1999).
933 - The Trial Chamber based that conclusion on the use of artillery and the involvement of other HVO units: Trial Judgement, paras. 506 and 516.
934 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 78-79. See also Brief in Reply, para. 55.
935 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.258.
936 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.260-2.261.
937 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2. 262.
938 - Brief in Reply, para. 56. See also Appellant, AT 808 (17 Dec. 2003).
939 - See this Chapter, section (B)(1), above.
940 - Witness BA5, AT 515-516 (11 Dec. 2003).
941 - Appellant, T 19,498 (24 Mar. 1999).
942 - Trial Judgement, para. 512.
943 - Trial Judgement, paras. 555, 560.
944 - Witness Djidic, T 1263 (29 July 1997).
945 - Trial Judgement, para. 512.
946 - AT 519 (11 Dec. 2003).
947 - AT 518, 532 (11 Dec. 2003).
948 - Witness BA5, AT 515 (11 Dec. 2003); AT 628 (16 Dec. 2003).
949 - See this Chapter, sections (C)(1) and (C)(2), below.
950 - Brief in Reply, para. 60.
951 - Brief in Reply, para. 61.
952 - Trial Judgement, para. 560.
953 - Trial Judgement, para. 562.
954 - See Chapter III (A)(1), above.
955 - See Chapter III (A)(1), above.
956 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 73-74.
957 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 73.
958 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 74.
959 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.290.
960 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.292-2.294.
961 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.294.
962 - Trial Judgement, para. 544.
963 - Trial Judgement, para. 539.
964 - Trial Judgement, para. 537.
965 - Trial Judgement, para. 544.
966 - Trial Judgement, para. 562. See Chapter III of this Judgement, section (A)(1), above.
967 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 74-75.
968 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 75.
969 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 76.
970 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.299.
971 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.300-2.301.
972 - Trial Judgement, para. 546.
973 - Trial Judgement, para. 550.
974 - See Chapter III (A)(1) of this Judgement, above: “A person who orders an act or omission with the awareness of the substantial likelihood that a crime will be committed in the execution of that order, has the requisite mens rea for establishing liability under Article 7(1) of the Statute pursuant to ordering. Ordering with such awareness has to be regarded as accepting that crime.”
975 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 79.
976 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 79.
977 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.284.
978 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.285.
979 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.286.
980 - Trial Judgement, para. 559.
981 - Trial Judgement, paras. 557-558.
982 - Trial Judgement, para. 554.
983 - Trial Judgement, para. 562.
984 - See Chapter III of this Judgement, section (A)(1), above: “A person who orders an act or omission with the awareness of the substantial likelihood that a crime will be committed in the execution of that order, has the requisite mens rea for establishing liability under Article 7(1) of the Statute pursuant to ordering. Ordering with such awareness has to be regarded as accepting that crime.”
985 - No additional evidence was presented on appeal in this regard.
986 - Trial Judgement, para. 554; AT 636 (16 Dec. 2003).
987 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 80.
988 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.264.
989 - See Chapter III of this Judgement, section (B)(3), above.
990 - Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 72; Celebici Trial Judgement, para. 346.
991 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 57.
992 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 70. “Attachment” of such units did not, according to the Appellant, mean that the units were under his de jure command: ibid., p.83.
993 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 80.
994 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 81-82.
995 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.271-2.272.
996 - See also AT 626 (16 Dec. 2003).
997 - Ex. 14, Second Rule 115 Motion, p. 135 (Kraljevic came to report to the Appellant after the explosion).
998 - PA 34.
999 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 82.
1000 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.287.
1001 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.287.
1002 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 70-73, and pp. 82-84. See also Witness BA3, AT 373-375 (9 Dec. 2003) (closed session).
1003 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 70.
1004 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 70. See also Supplemental Brief, paras. 51-53.
1005 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 83. This was confirmed by Witness BA1, AT 203 (8 Dec. 2003) (closed session). See also Ex. 96, First Rule 115 Motion; PA 26.
1006 - Brief in Reply, paras. 17-18.
1007 - Brief in Reply, para. 19.
1008 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.51.
1009 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.52.
1010 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.85-2.86.
1011 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.51-2.55.
1012 - PA 23–26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41.
1013 - Trial Judgement, para. 522.
1014 - Trial Judgement, paras. 516 and 518.
1015 - Trial Judgement, paras. 520 and 527.
1016 - T 19509-19510 and 19515-19516 (24 Mar. 1999).
1017 - Ex. 14, Second Rule 115 Motion, p.135. See also AT 762 (17 Dec. 2003), submissions by the Prosecution.
1018 - AT 625 (16 Dec. 2003).
1019 - Ex. 4, 14, 87, 88, 89, 90, and 101, First Rule 115 Motion (Exhibit 4 contains an HIS report of 18 February 1994 about a meeting scheduled among Mate Boban and others to appoint Darko Kraljevic, leader of the Vitezovi, to the rank of colonel in the HVO. The report mentions that Kraljevic intended to use this appointment to topple the Appellant with the aid of Kordic and Kostroman, and that the Appellant had limited influence over the planning of military operations which were carried out exclusively by Kordic and Kostroman; Exhibit 14 includes an HIS report dated 21 March 1994 and addressed to President Tudjman. The report reveals the tense relationship between the Appellant and Kraljevic, founder of the Vitezovi, including the fact that the Appellant prevented Kraljevic from assuming a command in Vitez, and that the latter openly threatened to kill the Appellant and later assumed the position of assistant to the Chief of the HVO Main Staff, apparently signing documents on the Chief’s behalf; Exhibit 87 contains a report dated 15 November 1992 from Zvonko Vukovic, the then commander of the 4th Battalion of the Military Police, to the HVO Main Staff and to Valentin Coric. The report states that the Vitezovi unit, which used to be an HOS (Croatian Defence Forces) unit under the command of Darko Kraljevic, was “presently” subordinated directly to the Main Staff. The report reveals that the Vitezovi without order took away vehicles and weapons from the Zenica-based Ministry of Interior; Exhibit 88 contains a report from the commander of the Vitezovi, Darko Kraljevic, to the Head of Defence of HZHB and the Chief of the HVO Main Staff, informing them that the unit had cleared Vitez of Muslims. Dated 17 April 1993, the report stated that the Vitezovi were short of ammunition, shells, and grenades. The Appellant was not copied on the report; Exhibit 89 includes a reply sent by Ivica Primorac, Assistant Chief of the HVO Main Staff, in response to the request contained in Exhibit 88, stating that the request by Kraljevic could not be met and that he should try to meet his demands through the Logistics of the CBOZ; Exhibit 90 contains a request from Ivica Primorac of the HVO Main Staff to Kraljevic for information on the casualties within the Vitezovi and Tvertko II Company since the beginning of the conflict with the Muslim side. It was dated 14 June 1993 and the Appellant did not receive a copy of it; Exhibit 101 includes an SIS Report dated 4 February 1994, detailing the warm-cold relations between the Travnik–Vitez CIS Center and Darko Kraljevic. The report details Kraljevic’s illicit activities through the Vitezovi); Ex.1, 35, 36, and 37, Second Rule 115 Motion (Exhibit 1 contains a report drafted by employees of the Croatian Ministry of Internal Affairs with information gathered since March 2000. The report states that Kordic and Kostroman were more influential than the Appellant, and that some commanders in the field who were connected to them could carry out operations without consulting the Appellant. The report states that certain HVO special units, including the Vitezovi of Darko Kraljevic, formally under the command of Ivica Primorac, Assistant Minister for Special Units in the Ministry of Defence, were actually commanded by Kordic; Exhibit 35 is a portion of the transcript of Anto Breljas’s testimony given in the Kordic and Cerkez trial on behalf of the Prosecution in January 2000. Breljas was the information and propaganda officer for the Vitezovi from March 1993 until April 1994. He testified that Kraljevic did not report to the Appellant, that the Appellant could not establish operational control of even conventional HVO units that were nominally within his command until late 1993, that Kraljevic had a close connection with Kordic, and that the Vitezovi operated in the CBOZ but were under the direct command of the HVO Main Staff; Exhibit 36 consists of a transcript of the testimony of General Merdan, a Prosecution witness in Kordic and Cerkez, given in January 2000. Merdan was in 1992-1993 the deputy commander of the ABiH 3rd Corps. He testified that he observed on several occasions that the Appellant could not command Kraljevic; Exhibit 37 contains a portion of trial transcript in the Kordic and Cerkez case dated 7 and 8 March 2000, recording the testimony by a Prosecution witness, Sulejman Kalco. Kalco was the deputy commander of the ABiH forces in Stari Vitez in 1993. He testified that Kraljevic, the commander of the Vitezovi, was in charge of the attack on Stari Vitez on 18 July 1993). See also PA 26; AT 625 (16 Dec. 2003). See also T 13,970-13,971 (27 Oct. 1998), by Slavko Marin.
1020 - See Chapter III of this Judgement, section (B), above, regarding the ground of appeal on alleged legal errors concerning Article 7(3) of the Statute.
1021 - See next sub-section, below.
1022 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 84.
1023 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 84.
1024 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 84.
1025 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 84-86.
1026 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 85.
1027 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.276.
1028 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.278.
1029 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.77-2.78.
1030 - T 18,835-18,836, 18,838 (10 Mar. 1999). It is noted that the Trial Chamber relied on his testimony for other findings in the same part of the Trial Judgement.
1031 - T 19,502 (24 Mar. 1999).
1032 - See this Chapter, section (B)(2), above.
1033 - AT 517 (11 Dec. 2003).
1034 - T 24,121 (23 June 1999) (Closed Session).
1035 - T 19508-19509 (24 Mar. 1999).
1036 - T 19502 (24 Mar. 1999).
1037 - See Appellant’s Brief, p. 84 (which repeats verbatim the relevant text in the confidential version of the brief).
1038 - See this Chapter, section (B)(3), above.
1039 - See this Chapter, section (B)(1), above.
1040 - Trial Judgement, para. 516.
1041 - Trial Judgement, para. 516.
1042 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 62.
1043 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 62.
1044 - Ex. 13, First Rule 115 Motion (Exhibit 13 includes an SIS report dated 8 June 1993 and based upon interviews of wounded individuals then staying in a hospital in Split. The document states that the Vitezovi, under the command of Kraljevic, were responsible for the killings of Muslim civilians in Vitez).
1045 - Witness Pezer, T 1562-1566 (19 Aug. 1997).
1046 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 86-87. This ground of appeal was the Fourth Ground in the Appellant’s Brief.
1047 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 86-87
1048 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 87.
1049 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 87.
1050 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 87.
1051 - Appellant’s Brief (citing Trial Judgement, para. 590).
1052 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 87-88. He also states that other than the fact that houses were burned, there is nothing linking the events in Loncari or Ocehnici with any other crimes alleged in the Trial Judgement.
1053 - Supplemental Brief, para. 62.
1054 - Supplemental Brief, para. 63.
1055 - Brief in Reply, para. 64.
1056 - Brief in Reply, paras. 65-66.
1057 - Brief in Reply, para. 67.
1058 - Brief in Reply, para. 69.
1059 - Ex. 14, Second Rule 115 Motion.
1060 - AT 638 (16 Dec. 2003).
1061 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.309.
1062 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.310.
1063 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.313.
1064 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.312.
1065 - The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Judgement is unclear as to whether the NSZ Brigade was part of the April 1993 attack on Loncari only or Ocehnici also; the findings differ in different parts of the Trial Judgement (see, for example, paras. 571 and 583 of the Trial Judgement).
1066 - Trial Judgement, paras. 583-589.
1067 - Trial Judgement, para. 589.
1068 - Trial Judgement, para. 589.
1069 - See Trial Judgement, para. 589.
1070 - Trial Judgement, para. 590.
1071 - See D300.
1072 - See T 5217 (12 Dec. 1997).
1073 - T 5179, T 5167-8 (11 Dec. 1997).
1074 - Witness BA4, for example, testified: “I have to reiterate that all the events, everything that happened in Busovaca, right from the start until all the way down to the killings and the expulsions of the population, that nothing was done without the explicit orders from Dario Kordic and Anto Sliškovic. They are the really evil men.” AT 491 (10 Dec. 2003). See also Ex. 6 to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion, a British Battalion military information summary (milinfosum) dated 30 April 1993, which states:

BHC report that on 28 Apr. a 40 vehicle convoy escorted by Britbat was detained by HVO forces, who demanded that they search it. HVO claim that their orders came from Mr. Kordic. They said that they would ignore any orders from Col Blaškic or Brig Petkovic. Eventually Brig Petkovic contacted Mr. Kordic and the convoy was allowed to pass. Local HVO said they were only acting on Mr. Kordic’s orders. This occurred in Busovaca. [….] Dario Kordic is the HDZ representative for Central Bosnia and also reputedly holds the rank of Col in the HVO. [….] This is not the first incident of this kind in Busovaca however it is the first indication of HVO soldiers in the town openly placing loyalty to Kordic before either Blaškic or Petkovic.

See also Ex. 40 to the Fourth Rule 115 Motion, an ECMM report dated 16 June 1993 (para. 16): In theory command and control of the HVO is through the normal military chain, although recent events demonstrate without doubt that the factions are far from being able to implement the ceasefire agreements signed by the two Commanders in chief. Controlled or uncontrolled HVO soldiers continue to prevent freedom of movement for any humanitarian aid or civilian traffic into Muslim held areas of Central Bosnia-Hercegovina. In particular the military police answer only to HVO Minister of Defense Stojic and Mate Boban, and are a major force in the control of traffic moving through South Central Bosnia-Hercegovina. In the Novi Travnik/Vitez/Busovaca area HVO preventing the movement of relief convoys answer only to Dario Kordic, Minister for Herceg-Bosna in the HVO Government, political leader, effective military commander in Busovaca and cousin of Mate Boban.
1075 - See Trial Judgement, paras. 377-378.
1076 - Trial Judgement, para. 378.
1077 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 94.
1078 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 89-90.
1079 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 90-91.
1080 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 92-93.
1081 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 94.
1082 - Brief in Reply, para. 71.
1083 - Brief in Reply, para. 73.
1084 - Brief in Reply, para. 74.
1085 - Brief in Reply, para. 75.
1086 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.323.
1087 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.326.
1088 - Trial Judgement, para. 592 (emphasis added).
1089 - See Chapter III (B) of this Judgement, above.
1090 - See para. 93 of this Judgement, above.
1091 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 95.
1092 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.329.
1093 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 95-96. This ground of appeal was the Fifth Ground in the Appellant’s Brief.
1094 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 96.
1095 - Brief in Reply, paras. 76-77.
1096 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.334.
1097 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.335.
1098 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 97.
1099 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 97.
1100 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 97-98.
1101 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 97-99.
1102 - Brief in Reply, para. 79.
1103 - Brief in Reply, para. 79.
1104 - Supplemental Brief, para. 66 (citing Ex. 14, Second Rule 115 Motion, pp 115-6).
1105 - Supplemental Brief, para. 66 (citing Ex. 45, Fourth Rule 115 Motion).
1106 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 99-100 (citing D32, P456/26, P456/27, D284, P456/36). See also p. 102.
1107 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 101-102 (citing First Rule 115 Motion Ex. 138, 139, 140, 141).
1108 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 101 (citing First Rule 115 Motion Ex. 142, 143, 145).
1109 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 101.
1110 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 102.
1111 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 102.
1112 - Brief in Reply, para. 78.
1113 - Brief in Reply, para. 80.
1114 - Supplemental Brief, para. 64.
1115 - Supplemental Brief, para. 66 (citing Ex. 47, Fourth Rule 115 Motion).
1116 - Supplemental Brief, para. 69 (citing PA 49, Ex. 141 (First Rule 115 Motion) and PA 47, PA 48).
1117 - Supplemental Brief, para. 70.
1118 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.336, 2.338-2.339.
1119 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.344; See also paras. 2.340-2.343.
1120 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 2.350-2.355.
1121 - Trial Judgement, para. 661.
1122 - Trial Judgement, para. 653.
1123 - Trial Judgement, para. 661.
1124 - See Judgement, supra para. 42.
1125 - Trial Judgement, para. 653.
1126 - Trial Judgement, para. 653.
1127 - Trial Judgement, para. 653.
1128 - D299.
1129 - AT 651 (16 Dec. 2003).
1130 - AT 652 (16 Dec. 2003).
1131 - AT 652 (16 Dec. 2003).
1132 - AT 652-653 (16 Dec. 2003).
1133 - AT 768 (17 Dec. 2003).
1134 - D300 (emphasis added).
1135 - Trial Judgement, para. 644.
1136 - Trial Judgement, para. 650.
1137 - Indeed, the Trial Chamber had found that military surveillance had been organized by the Muslims, particularly at Gomionica, Hercezi, Svinjarevo, and Višnjica, and that the BH army was present at the time of the offensives carried out in the village of Svinjarevo. Trial Judgement, para. 630. The Trial Chamber relied on the evidence of a witness who testified in closed session and who stated that the main headquarters of the Jasikovica Detachment was in the village of Višnjica T 7979 (28 Apr. 1998) (closed session). See Trial Judgement, p. 209, n. 1445. That witness also testified that an order of the commander of the Territorial Defense of Kiseljak established the Jasikovica Detachment, which comprised the villages of Rotilj, Višnjica, Hercezi, and Doci; it was established with the sole purpose of providing assistance to the army of the Republic of BH in the area where the Bosnian Army was conducting war against the Serbs. T 7922 (28 Apr. 1998) (Closed Session). The witness further stated Gomionica, Svinjarevo, Gromljak, and Jehovac came under the authority of the Mlava Detachment. T 7975.
The Trial Chamber cited the opening remarks of Prosecution counsel (T 9244-5 (4 June 1998)), relating to the testimony of another witness who testified in closed session; it is unclear whether this page reference contained in the Trial Judgement is an error. However, that witness did testify, that in a house in Gomionica there was a Territorial Defense, with a staff of 5-6 people, as far as he knew, but he added: “there might have been more people actually working there….” T 9256 (4 June 1998) He added that they functioned as a Territorial Defense; it was a Territorial Defense staff that was operational until 1 January 1993; and that after that, it became the BiH army. The witness also testified, in relation to Gomionica: “Number 1 represents a house where the Territorial Defence staff was. They were expelled from Kiseljak, I think, in early '93 and they were in that house up until the 17th in the evening, the 17th of April that is.” T 9252 (4 June 1998) (Closed Session).
In relation to Hercezi, the Trial Chamber cited Witness JJ who testified: “We organized ourselves in the village. There were about 15 able-bodied men there. We split between two ends of the village; we knew what we needed to protect.” T 7398 (19 Mar. 1998) (Open Session).
In relation to Visnjica, the Trial Chamber cited Witness AA, who testified that “there were several soldiers, like a detachment of Jasikovci. How many soldiers there were I do not know.” T 6621 (19 Feb. 1998) (Open Session).
1138 - See Trial exhibit P510.
1139 - AT 396 (9 Dec. 2003).
1140 - AT 298 (9 Dec. 2003).
1141 - AT 182 (8 Dec. 2003).
1142 - See PA 47, dated 19 April 1993 (0835 hours), which states: “1. Conduct the capture of Gomionica (slopes above the village) and intensify combat activities because they have launched heavy attacks on Busovaca and Vitez so they do not have any large forces there. 2. Today we HAVE TO pass through Gomionica!!!….” See also PA 48, dated 19 April 1993 (0950 hours), which states again: “Head toward Gomionica with all available weapons…”
1143 - See para. 93 of this Judgement, above. The Appellant’s arguments are briefly summarized as follows. The Appellant states that new evidence shows that Rajic was the de jure and de facto HVO commander in Kiseljak and reported directly to General Petkovic, and that it shows that Rajic was under the sole, de facto command of the HVO Main Staff rather than the Appellant. The Appellant submits in his Brief in Reply that the additional evidence shows that Rajic was appointed in May 1993 by General Petkovic, and that the Appellant merely recommended Rajic to be so appointed. He adds that there is no support for the proposition that a superior officer (in this case Petkovic, not the Appellant) is criminally responsible because he appointed an officer who later ordered the commission of crimes, and that Rajic’s appointment in May 1993 does not mean that he was incapable of ordering the commission of crimes prior to his appointment.
1144 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 103-104.
1145 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 103.
1146 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 2.348.
1147 - Trial Judgement, paras. 659, 661.
1148 - Trial Judgement, para. 659.
1149 - See the following items of additional evidence: Ex. 132 to the First Rule 115 Motion, dated 11 May 1993, from the Appellant to Bruno Stojic, Milivoj Petkovic, and Valentic Coric, wherein he requests the temporary appointment of Ivica Rajic to the post of Commander of the Kiseljak Operative Group and states “with your guidance, he could keep the situation under control at this moment…”; Ex. 183 to the First Rule 115 Motion, dated 28 April 1993, from Petkovic to the Ban Jelacic Brigade commander, wherein Petkovic requests an immediate report in connection with whether Ivica Rajic is in the Kiseljak municipality and further states: “Immediately forbid and firmly punish persons who set Muslim property on fire, and immediately send me information on the perpetrators. Bring everything under control…. If burning property continues, the HZHB HVO will disassociate itself from Kiseljak. Prepare a report on events in the villages of Kazagici, Gomionica, and Svinjarevo and send it immediately….”; and Ex. 16 to the Second Rule 115 Motion, a Prosecution suspected Bosnian-Croat chain of command, wherein Ivica Rajic is placed on the same level as the Appellant.
1150 - See para. 93 of this Judgement, above.
1151 - Trial Judgement, paras. 679 et seq. The Second Amended Indictment itself referred instead to “inhumane treatment; the taking of hostages; and the use of human shields”.
1152 - Trial Judgement, paras. 372, 700, and 739, the last quoting the Appellant’s admission of this fact. See also Appellant’s Brief, p. 108, where these facts are conceded. The Appellant alleges that the detainees were “mostly men of fighting age” but, even if this is accepted, it does not alter their status as non-combatants.
1153 - Trial Judgement, para. 733.
1154 - Namely: Count 15: Inhuman treatment under Article 2(b) of the Statute; Count 16: Cruel treatment as a violation of the laws or customs of war under Article 3 of the Statute, and of common Article 3(1)(a) of the Geneva Conventions; Count 17: Taking civilians as hostages under Article 2(h) of the Statute; Count 18: Taking as hostages non-combatant persons, as a violation of the laws or customs of war under Article 3 of the Statute and of common Article 3(1)(b) of the Geneva Conventions (NB: the indictment refers to Article 3 generally, not expressly to 3(1)(b)); Count 19: Inhuman treatment, for the use of civilians as human shields, under Article 2(b) of the Statute ; Count 20: Cruel treatment, for the use of civilians as human shields, as a violation of the laws or customs of war under Article 3 of the Statute, and of common Article 3(1)(a) of the Geneva Conventions. See Trial Judgement, paras. 721, and 733–734, together with the Disposition, p. 268. The parties agree that the convictions on Counts 16, 18, and 20 should be reversed by reason of being impermissibly cumulative with Counts 15, 17 and 20 respectively. See Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.28 (re. Count 16); para. 8.30 (re. Count 18), and para. 8.29 (re. Count 20).
1155 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 109-114. This ground of appeal was the Fifth Ground in the Appellant’s Brief.
1156 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 189.
1157 - Trial Judgement, paras. 688 et seq.
1158 - Trial Judgement, para. 694 et seq.
1159 - Trial Judgement, paras. 789, 693, 699. In respect of Kaonik, see Trial Judgement, para. 372.
1160 - See below.
1161 - Trial Judgement, para. 692.
1162 - Trial Judgement, para. 695.
1163 - Trial Judgement, para. 721: “General Blaškic is responsible for the violence committed in the detention facilities pursuant to the principle of command responsibility enshrined in Article 7(3) of the Statute.”
1164 - Trial Judgement, para. 738: “[T]he trial Chamber concludes that General Blaškic ordered the use of detainees to dig trenches”.
1165 - See Trial Judgement, para. 720.
1166 - Trial Judgement, para. 720.
1167 - Trial Judgement, para. 720.
1168 - Trial Judgement, para. 722 (citing the Appellant’s testimony at trial).
1169 - Trial Judgement, para. 720.
1170 - Trial Judgement, para. 721. As to this application of Article 7(3) of the Statute, see section (3) below.
1171 - The Appellant submits that he took remedial measures when he learned of unlawful detention, Appellant’s Brief, p. 113. See below. In addition, the totality of the evidence before the Appeals Chamber, including the additional evidence admitted on appeal, shows that the Appellant occasionally knew that work platoons existed, and that they were at his disposal. The Appellant has in fact denied such knowledge, other than in relation one instance, where the two perpetrators were disciplined.
1172 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 108–113.
1173 - Trial Judgement, para. 207, and n. 1630. The two witnesses were Witness TT and Witness Zeco.
1174 - Trial Judgement, para. 720.
1175 - Witness TT, T 9330 (4 June 1998) (Closed Session).
1176 - Witness TT, T 9330 (4 June 1998) (Closed Session).
1177 - Trial Judgement, para. 720, n. 1630.
1178 - Trial Judgement, para. 738. The Trial Judgement makes no specific reference to Article 7(1); rather, the Trial Chamber’s reliance upon Article 7(1) is inferred from the language in para. 738 where it was held that the Appellant “ordered the use of the detainees”. Although it is not expressed anywhere in the Trial Judgement, the Prosecution submits that this finding was based on Article 7(1) of the Statute (Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.46); and AT 679 et seq. (16 Dec. 2003) (Open Session)), presumably because there is no other possible explanation.
1179 - Trial Judgement, para. 738.
1180 - P715, p. 3.
1181 - P716 and P717.
1182 - Trial Judgement, para. 736.
1183 - Trial Judgement, para. 736, n. 1651.
1184 - Trial Judgement, para. 736, n. 1652.
1185 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 110.
1186 - Trial Judgement, para. 738.
1187 - Trial Judgement, para. 737, citing T 22,773 (27 May 1999) (Open Session): Question: “Now, General, if a work platoon had been sent to a front line position, a dangerous front line position, to dig trenches, based on your training in the JNA and training in the Geneva Conventions, would such a practice be unlawful? Blaškic: “Of course, if they were taken to dangerous positions.” See also the Appellant at T 22,693 (26 May 1999) (Open Session): “[It was] against the law to force civilian detainees, and generally detainees, to force them to dig trenches and undertake engineering work.”
1188 - Trial Judgement, para. 736, and T 22,774 I (27 May 1999) (Open Session) and Appellant’s Brief, p. 110.
1189 - See T 22,711 and T 22,714 (26 May 1999) (Private Session).
1190 - Trial Judgement, paras. 686 and 736. See also T 22,693 et seq. (26 May 1999) (Open Session).
1191 - Since, in relation to those orders, the fighting had ceased at that time. Appellant’s Brief, p. 110.
1192 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 110.
1193 - Trial Judgement, para. 713.
1194 - Repsondent’s Brief, para. 3.40 (citing Trial Judgement, para. 700).
1195 - See Appellant’s Brief, pp. 109-110 (specifying, however, that civilians of all ethnicities were mobilized to dig trenches). The Trial Chamber found that men detained in Kiseljak barracks and Rotilj village were compelled by the HVO to dig trenches, and that some detainees deployed near the front-line were killed or wounded during exchanges of fire; that forced labour sometimes lasted a long time and the detainees were exposed to bad weather; that detainees digging trenches were mistreated by the Military Police who occasionally inflicted sadistic bodily harm on them and prevented the detainees from taking cover whilst fire was being exchanged; Trial Judgement, para. 693. Detainees imprisoned in Kaonik prison (Trial Judgement, para. 688), the Vitez Cultural Centre, the veterinary station, Dubravica school, and the SDK building were also forced to dig trenches (Trial Judgement, para. 699). Some detainees at the front-line were killed or wounded, and were prevented from taking cover when under fire. In at least one incident, detainees were killed and threatened with death (Trial Judgement, paras. 693, 699). See generally Trial Judgement, para. 735. Various evidence admitted at trial supports these conclusions, including inter alia Ex. P514, Ex. P677, and Ex. P714.
1196 - See P715 HVO “Report on the organization of work platoons”, 10 September 1993, and further reports of 20 and 21 September 1993 (P717 and P716 respectively).
1197 - Case No. 72, Law Reports of the Trials of War Criminals, p. 1. The case considered, inter alia, the Hague Rules of Land Warfare.
1198 - Law Reports of the Trials of War Criminals, pp. 91-92. As to the compulsory use of civilian labour, this case’s application in casu is limited, as it finds only that the recruitment of labour in the occupied countries for use within the Reich was illegal. See p. 93.
1199 - Law Reports Digest of Laws and Cases, Vol. XV.
1200 - Law Reports Digest of Laws and Cases, p. 103, n. 5.
1201 - Law Reports Digest of Laws and Cases, p. 103.
1202 - Law Reports Digest of Laws and Cases, p. 119.
1203 - Law Reports of the Trials of War Criminals, p. 120.
1204 - Found by the Trial Chamber to be applicable in this case; see Trial Judgement, paras. 133, 143, and 147.
1205 - Article 51 of Geneva Convention IV reads as follows: “The Occupying Power may not compel protected persons to serve in its armed or auxiliary forces. No pressure or propaganda which aims at securing voluntary enlistment is permitted.
The Occupying Power may not compel protected persons to work unless they are over eighteen years of age, and then only on work which is necessary either for the needs of the army of occupation, or for the public utility services, or for the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transportation or health of the population of the occupied country. Protected persons may not be compelled to undertake any work which would involve them in the obligation of taking part in military operations. The Occupying Power may not compel protected persons to employ forcible means to ensure the security of the installations where they are performing compulsory labour.
The work shall be carried out only in the occupied territory where the persons whose services have been requisitioned are. Every such person shall, so far as possible, be kept in his usual place of employment. Workers shall be paid a fair wage and the work shall be proportionate to their physical and intellectual capacities. The legislation in force in the occupied country concerning working conditions, and safeguards as regards, in particular, such matters as wages, hours of work, equipment, preliminary training and compensation for occupational accidents and diseases, shall be applicable to the protected persons assigned to the work referred to in this Article.
In no case shall requisition of labour lead to a mobilization of workers in an organization of a military or semi-military character.”
1206 - Ibid.
1207 - Ibid.
1208 - Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 89. See also Naletilic Trial Judgement, paras. 245 et seq. In order for the relevant provisions to apply, the detainees must all have been ‘protected persons’ within the meaning of Geneva Convention III or IV, depending on their status either as prisoners of war or as civilians respectively.
1209 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras. 424, 426 (s omitted) (where the Appeals Chamber distinguished “cruel treatment” from “wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health” and “inhuman treatment” under Article 2, in that the second two offences each contain an element not present in the offence of cruel treatment under Article 3: the protected person status of the victim. The offence of cruel treatment does not require proof that the victims are protected persons). See also para. 426.
1210 - See P715, HVO “Report on the organization of work platoons”, 10 September 1993; and further reports of 20 and 21 September 1993 (P717 and P716 respectively).
1211 - Trial Judgement, paras. 686 and 736. See also T 22,693 et seq. (26 May 1999) (Open Session).
1212 - Indeed, Article 49 of Geneva Convention III begins: “The Detaining Power may utilize the labour of prisoners of war”. Geneva Convention IV (Article 51) specifies what labour is prohibited – there is no blanket prohibition against the use of protected persons for labour.
1213 - Commentary to Geneva Convention III, p. 266, and Article 51 of Geneva Convention IV.
1214 - Commentary to Geneva Convention III, p. 267. Commentary to Geneva Convention IV, p. 294: “it is generally agreed that the inhabitants of the occupied territory cannot be requisitioned for such work as the construction of fortifications, trenches or aerial bases”.
1215 - Trial Judgement, para. 738.
1216 - Respondent’s Brief, p. 110.
1217 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.21.
1218 - Trial Judgement, para. 738.
1219 - D373 is an order (number 01-6-486/93) signed by the Appellant.
1220 - Testimony of Brigadier Slavko Marin T 13,598 (15 Oct. 1998) (Open Session) (discussing Ex. D373, an order from the Appellant forbidding the use of detainees to dig trenches). See also Marin’s statement, at T 13,598, that “the commander of the Operative Zone did issue a command that such things should not be done” from April 1993 onwards, referring to trench-digging. The Appellant himself has testified that he forbade the use of detainees to dig trenches; see T 22,696 (26 May 1999) (Open Session), and the discussion below of the so-called ‘humanitarian orders’ issued by the Appellant.
1221 - Trial Judgement, para. 728. As to these ‘humanitarian orders’, see below.
1222 - See the discussion of P715, P716, and P717 above.
1223 - See Judgement, para. 93, above.
1224 - Trial Judgement, para. 733.
1225 - Brief in Reply, para. 93.
1226 - Brief in Reply, para. 93.
1227 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.20. In short, the Prosecution submits that the Appellant “has failed to show any error in the Trial Chamber’s findings that he had the requisite mens rea to be convicted for crimes being committed in the detention centres in Vitez, Busovaca and Kiseljak municipalities” (para. 3.28).
1228 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 3.7 and 3.8.
1229 - The Prosecution further submits that the Appellant has failed to show any error in the Trial Chamber’s findings that he exercised “effective control” over the perpetrators of the detention-related crimes (Respondent’s Brief, paras. 3.14-3.15). The Prosecution focused primarily on the fact that regular HVO soldiers participated in the violence (Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.16 et seq.). Even if this is true, it does not ipso facto support a criminal charge against the Appellant.
1230 - Trial Judgement, paras. 723.
1231 - Trial Judgement, paras. 724.
1232 - Ibid..
1233 - Trial Judgement, para. 725.
1234 - For example, the Trial Chamber heard evidence from Witness Slavko Marin that the Appellant could not in fact punish the men responsible as he had no way of doing so (T 13,598) (15 Oct. 1998) (Open Session) - they were beyond his effective command and control.
1235 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 111-112.
1236 - Witness BA3, AT 440 (10 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session) (referring to D523, and regarding the Appellant’s authority to use MP’s limited to regular duties, and not combat duties); Witness BA4, AT 490 – 492 (10 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session):“[The Appellant’s name] carried zero weight. His name didn’t mean a thing. As far as we were concerned, we didn’t know that man at all.” Regarding MP’s ignoring Blaškic and heeding Kordic, see Witness BA3’s testimony at AT 378 (9 Dec. 2003)(Closed Session), and again at AT 472 (10 Dec. 2003)(Closed Session). Regarding the Appellant’s attempts to replace the command of the Military Police, see the Appellant’s statement at AT 841 (17 Dec. 2003) (Open Session). Regarding HVO Command structure limiting the Appellant’s authority over the Military Police to non-combat assignments, see testimony of a witness who testified at T 24,018-9 (23 June 1999) (Closed Session, Videolink). See generally the evidence considered in Chapter VII (B) above.
1237 - See Ex. 84, First Rule 115 Motion, a report from Coric (Chief of Military Police Administration) to Mate Boban (HZ-HB President) of 9 March 1993, relating the problems associated with the Military Police. PA12 (an order to the MP 4th Battalion from the Appellant dated 16 Aptil 1993) does not serve credibly to undermine the conclusion reached, and does not evidence effective control.
1238 - Regarding the Military Police ignoring Blaškic and heeding Kordic, see Witness BA3’s testimony at AT 378 (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session), and again at AT 472 (10 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session). Regarding the Appellant’s authority to use the Military Police for regular duties, and not combat duties, see AT 440 (10 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session), Witness BA3, referring to D523 (rules on the formation and the activity of the administration of the Military Police, see Trial Judgement, para. 455). Regarding the Appellant’s attempts to replace the command of the Military Police, see the Appellant’s statement at AT 841 (17 Dec. 2003) (Open Session). See also Chapter VII (B) above.
1239 - See Ex. 96, First Rule 115 Motion, discussed below. PA 24, an interim report from Vitezovi commander Kraljevic, cannot be viewed as credible evidence against Ex. 96, as his statement of subordination to the Appellant is purely formulaic, directed to his ultimate superiors in Mostar. See Ex. D677, an UNPROFOR Report dated 6 February 1993: “Cerkez normally controls Vitez Brigade… command and control of external troops is as yet unclear.”
1240 - Witness Watkins, AT 284 (9 Dec. 2003) (Open Session). See Witness Marin, T 13,970 (27 Oct. 1998) (Open Session) (testimony that the Appellant had no power to discipline members of the Military Police).
1241 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 112. Regarding Kraljevic, see Witness BA5, AT 543 (11 Dec. 2003) (Open Session).
1242 - Witness BA4, AT 490 (9 Dec. 2003) (Open Session), together with the evidence cited for this proposition above. See also Witness BA4, AT 492 (10 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session), and Witness Morsink, T 10,037 (3 July 1998) (Open Session); and Witness Tadic T, 17,209 (19 Jan. 1999) (Open Session), that the Appellant was not authorised to control or command what was happening in a military detention centre or military prison.
1243 - Witness Watkins, AT 282-283 (9 Dec. 2003) (Open Session). Another individual may have wielded effective control in the Kiseljak municipality; see Ex. 132 and Ex. 183 to the First Rule 115 Motion; Ex. 27 to the Second Rule 115 Motion.
1244 - Witness Watkins, AT 348 (9 Dec. 2003) (Open Session); Witness BA4, AT 492 and AT 503 (10 Dec. 2003) (Open Session).
1245 - AT 294-295 (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session). See also Section VII (B) above.
1246 - Witness BA3, who testified that, based on his information, the special units were under the command of Kordic. This view was shared by ABiH 3rd Corps. AT 380 (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session).
1247 - Witness Watkins, T 281, 292 (9 Dec. 2003) (Open Session).
1248 - See Ex. 96, First Rule 115 Motion, a letter from the Appellant to the head of the Defence Department in Mostar (Bruno Stojic “personally”) dated 7 May 1993, in which he complains to the HVO Department of Defence that the Darko Kraljevic and the Vitezovi, a unit supposedly subordinate to him, was beyond his control: “Since Vitezovi PPN Commander Darko KRALJEVIC is directly subordinated to you, please help us resolve this issue, which is becoming increasingly complicated.”
1249 - See testimony of Witness BA3, AT 374 (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session), that when the Appellant ordered the immediate release of the witness from detention, Darko Kraljevic (commander of the Vitezovi) refused to do so, together with Witness BA3’s supposition (at AT 375) (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session) that he was only released upon Kordic’s intervention.
1250 - Witness BA3, AT 472 (10 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session). See also Chapter VIII (C) above.
1251 - Witness Watkins, AT 283 (9 Dec. 2003) (Open Session).
1252 - Witness Watkins, AT 292 (9 Dec. 2003) (Open Session). That checkpoint was reportedly 15 to 20 minutes away from the Appellant’s headquarters in the Hotel Vitez. Witness BA3, who frequently travelled throughout the Lašva Valley during the war, further testified (at AT 378) (9 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session) that “in some cases I would show the pass issued by General Tihomir Blaškic to the military police, and they would tell me: ‘As far as we’re concerned, this pass is invalid’.”
1253 - Ex. 132, First Rule 115 Motion.
1254 - A witness testified that, while he was organizing the defence of a town in the Lašva Valley region after the capture of Jajce by the Bosnian Serbs, he requested HVO artillery in support of units under his command. This request could not be authorized without the consent of Kordic, even though it had been addressed to the Appellant. AT 451 (10 Dec. 2003) (Closed Session).
1255 - Regard must also be had to the Appellant’s statement to a member of the press, and admitted into evidence, that he exercised command over all operative groups (Ex. P456/32). This evidence must be qualified by the context in which that statement was made. See AT 352 (9 Dec. 2003) (Open Session), and the reply of Witness Watkins in response to a question from the Appeals Chamber. See also Appellant Counsel’s closing arguments, AT 604 (16 Dec. 2003) (Open Session), where Martin Bell interview (video) was screened, AT 632 (16 Dec. 2003) (Open Session). In brief, there is considerable doubt about the extent to which the statement was the Appellant’s own, since it was contained in a written response to a series of written questions, and the response had been prepared by an aide to the Appellant. It is also unreasonable to expect a contrary response to the press from a commander in the field and in the midst of combat operations, who would not ordinarily disclose problems in his command structure under such circumstances.
1256 - Detainees in the SDK building were guarded by Military Police (Trial Judgement, para. 698).
1257 - Witness BA4, AT 490 (9 Dec. 2003) (Open Session), together with the evidence cited for this finding above.
1258 - Ex. 132, First Rule 115 Motion; and see the discussion above.
1259 - The Trial Judgement’s conclusions as to what the Appellant knew or had reason to know (Trial Judgement, para. 733) exclude Gacice Village.
1260 - Witness Zeco, T 2808, (26 Sept. 1997) (Open Session). Witness D, T 2700-1 (24 Sept. 1997) (Open Session) testified that he was arrested “by HVO soldiers”. Witness Beso, T 2216 (26 Aug. 1997) (Open Session) testified that the men who detained him “were wearing camouflage uniforms with HVO patches their sleeves.”
1261 - Trial Judgement, para. 694.
1262 - Trial Judgement, paras. 723, 725.
1263 - Not all of whom were necessarily detained there at the same time.
1264 - Trial Judgement, para. 696, and n. 1595.
1265 - Witness Beso T 2232 (26 Aug. 1997) (Open Session).
1266 - See Witness Pezer, T 1573 (19 Aug. 1997) (Open Session).
1267 - Witness Y, T 6509 (29 Jan. 1998) (Closed Session).
1268 - Trial Judgement, para. 92.
1269 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 112.
1270 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 112, and Brief in Reply, para. 91.
1271 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.27.
1272 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.27.
1273 - See Chapter III (B) (2), above.
1274 - On 23 April 1993, the Appellant set up one of his command centres in the former JNA Barracks in Kiseljak, which were also used as a detention centre between April and November of that year; see Trial Judgement, para. 690. The Vitez veterinary station, another detention centre for the period 16 to 20 April 1993, was approximately 900 metres from the Hotel Vitez; see Trial Judgement, para. 694. The Vitez Cultural Centre, used as a detention centre from 16 April 1993, was at most 100 metres from the Hotel Vitez (see Trial Judgement, para. 696, and testimony of Witness BA5, AT 527 (11 Dec. 2003) (Open Session). The SDK building was some 150 metres from the Hotel Vitez; see T 22,719 (26 May 1999) (Open Session). On one occasion on 20 April 1993, 247 detainees from Gacice were in front of the Hotel Vitez; Trial Judgement para. 742; and see below. Throughout this period, the Appellant used the Hotel Vitez as his headquarters. Note is also taken of the testimony of Witness HH, a Military Policeman at the Hotel Vitez who testified that the trench-digging activities in Busovaca were observed by everyone there, as they were so obvious (T 6831) (24 Feb. 1998) (Closed Session).
1275 - T 22733 (26 May 1999) (Open Session): “I visited practically all the front lines at different periods of time, and I spent a long time at the front lines in different periods.”
1276 - Witness Zeco testified that the ABiH outnumbered the HVO by a proportion of 10 to 1; see T 11,717 (21 Sept. 1998) (Open Session).
1277 - Ex. D298 and D301. The Appeals Chamber notes the distinction between ordering one’s subordinates to prepare defensive positions, and ordering that detainees be used for that purpose.
1278 - See the discussion of humanitarian orders below.
1279 - T 22694 and T 22732 (26 May 1999) (Open Session). At T 18,271, the Appellant acknowledged that he discussed reports of detainees digging trenches with an ICRC observer as early as 5 February 1993, and that he followed up on that report to ensure that it was either not happening, or that it would cease (23 Feb. 1999) (Open Session).
1280 - Ex. P514. Witness Morsink, an ECMM monitor, testified that the HVO was repeatedly informed of these observations by the ECMM; see T 9895 (2 July 1998) (Open Session).
1281 - Ex. P677 and P714.
1282 - Witness HH, T 6833, 6844 (24 Feb. 1998) (Closed Session). See T 22,712 (26 May 1999) (Private Session). The Appellant denies any knowledge of the alleged incidents in that evidence because he was isolated in Kiseljak at that time, T 22,714-5 (26 May 1999) (Private Session).
1283 - This finding, and the finding that the Appellant knew that detainees were forced to dig trenches, is one which the Trial Chamber made obiter (Trial Judgement, para. 733). The Appeals Chamber notes that the Prosecution submitted evidence on appeal as rebuttal evidence suggesting that the Appellant allegedly expressed concern that the international community would hear of the deaths of detainees while digging trenches (Ex. PA 56). This exhibit is an order to the Commander of the Ban Jelacic Brigade dated 22 May 1993, in which the Appellant expressed concern about the international community finding out that a Muslim prisoner was killed by a sniper while digging trenches at HVO lines. However, the B/C/S (original) version of this document has a hand-written annotation on it adjacent to the deleted paragraph 3: “ovo ne” meaning “this not”. The Appeals Chamber considers that the probative value of this evidence must be assessed in light of the manuscript amendment, and the Appeals Chamber cannot conclude that the Appellant intended to distort news of future such occurrences.
1284 - The Appeals Chamber notes that this factor of proximity is one factor among many, and neither sole nor the determining factor. A superior cannot be convicted on the basis of command responsibility merely because of his proximity to the scene of the crime.
1285 - The detainees in Dubravica, and in the SDK building in Vitez, were subject to Vitezovi control and were beyond the Appellant’s control (detainees in the SDK building were guarded by Military Police, Trial Judgement para. 698); Kaonik Prison in Busovaca was controlled by Military Police loyal to Kordic and beyond the Appellant’s control; Kiseljak was largely isolated, and thus the detention centres there (the former JNA barracks and Rotilj village) were beyond the Appellant’s control; and the detentions in various houses in the village of Gacice has already been shown to have been beyond the Appellant’s knowledge.
1286 - Trial Judgement, para. 696 (s omitted).
1287 - Witness Mujezinovic, T 1710 (19 Aug. 1997) (Open Session); Witness Y, T 6508 et seq. (Closed Session) (29 Jan. 1998).
1288 - Witness Zeco testified that he was transferred to the school in Dubravica (T 2809-2810) (26 Sept. 1997) (Open Session), where he and his fellow detainees remained until 30 April 1993.
1289 - Witness Zeco, T 2810-11 (26 Sept. 1997) (Open Session).
1290 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 114.
1291 - Ex. D366, an order of 29 April 1993 directing inter alia the “[r]elease of all civilians (men, women and children). arrested during the conflicts between the BH Army and the HVO” and that “[a]ll released civilians must be guaranteed full safety in the locations in your zones of responsibility and you shall be held responsible for the situation your zones…”.
1292 - Witness Stewart, T 23,813 (17 June 1999) (Open Session).
1293 - Trial Judgement, paras. 721 et seq.
1294 - Trial Judgement, para. 734.
1295 - Brief in Reply, para. 94.
1296 - Brief in Reply, para. 94.
1297 - See, for example Ex. 14, Second Rule 115 Motion. See also D318: “Take care of all the wounded, no matter what army they belong to”. See also the following exhibits: D32, an order of 18 April 1993 to “Exchange the detained soldiers and civilians at once” and “take care of all the wounded, no matter what army they belong to” and “gather the relevant data … about murdering civilians and soldiers”; D333: an order of 20 April 1993 to “make sure the ICRC has free access to civilians in all areas … respect and protect the civilian population … treat captured civilians and soldiers in a humane fashion … allow free access to humanitarian aid”; D334: an order of 21 April 1993 “with regard to the … violation of the rights of the ICRC … [to] allow the ICRC free access to civilians in all areas … respect and protect the civilian population … treat the captured civilians and soldiers humanely and provide them with suitable protection … D336: an order of 21 April 1993 to “guarantee full safety to Muslim civilians and civilians of other nationalities”; D362: an order of 24 April 1993 providing that “unhindered access and rendering assistance to all wounded persons, be they civilians, soldiers or enemy soldiers, is to be ensured … civilians and prisoners are to be treated in accordance with international conventions and regulations”; D366: an order of 29 April 1993 “release all civilians (men, women and children … all released civilians must be guaranteed full safety”; D373 is an order dated 21 June 1993 which inter alia forbids the use of prisoners of war to do engineering work; D389: an order dated 1 December 1993 requiring “the treatment of the military prisoners of war must be within the framework of the Geneva Convention and the international law concerning the treatment of prisoners of war.” See Appellant’s Brief, pp. 38, 40. These orders are all marked confidential, military secret, and directed subordinates to act upon them (ex. D333: “familiarize units under your command with this order”); See also Exhibits D334, D362, D373 and D389. Seen in this light, it cannot credibly be maintained that these orders were a ‘sham’ as was alluded to by the Prosecution (see AT 713) (16 Dec. 2003) (Open Session). The Prosecution submitted that the ample evidence before the Trial Chamber of the Appellant’s written and oral orders to release prisoners held by the HVO, made it inconceivable that he had no knowledge or involvement in the detention (Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.20); this assertion has been addressed above.
1298 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 114.
1299 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.31.
1300 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.32.
1301 - Prosecution’s closing submission, AT 713 (16 Dec. 2003) (Open Session). The Prosecution further argued that the Appellant failed to ensure that the orders issued were followed up.
1302 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.33.
1303 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.29 et seq; AT 698 (16 Dec. 2003) (Open Session).
1304 - T 22,703 (26 May 1999) (Open Session).
1305 - He ordered an investigation into the alleged rape of a detainee at Dubravica (T 19,211–19,214) (17 Mar. 1999) (Open Session) and was later informed that an investigation had been initiated. He further ordered an investigation of two HVO personnel involved in the deaths of two detainees who had been engaged in trench-digging at the time; see T 22,968-9 (26 May 1999) (Open Session). The Appellant was however unable to submit documentary evidence of these instances.
1306 - See above and see Witness Watkins, AT 320 (9 Dec. 2003) (Open Session).
1307 - See also Trial Judgement, para. 474, where the Appellant was found to have given an order “on 18 January 1993 for the attention of the regular units of the HVO, the independent units and the MP 4th Battalion instructing them to make sure that all soldiers prone to criminal conduct were not in a position to do any harm” (citing Appellant’s testimony, T 18,125-18,126 (23 Feb. 1999) (Open Session); and Witness Marin, T 12,089-12,090 (24 Sept. 1998) (Open Session)). The Appellant later distributed a reminder, but neither order had any effect.
1308 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.31. There are in fact two examples to the contrary. First, the Appellant failed to discipline Duško Grubešic, the deputy commander of the NSZ Brigade in Busovaca, for failing to prevent forced trench-digging by detainees, during which two detainees were killed on the front lines (T 22,699 et seq. (26 May 1999) (Open Session)). Appellant: “I personally did not issue disciplinary measures towards those perpetrators of the crime”, T 22,703 (26 May 1999) (Open Session). The Appellant maintained that he did all he could to initiate an investigation.) A further example is the Appellant’s failure to discipline Ivica Rajic for his involvement in crimes committed in Stupni Do (AT 320–321) (9 Dec. 2003) (Open Session).
1309 - T 22,701 et seq. (26 May 1999) (Open Session).
1310 - See above.
1311 - Trial Judgement, para. 338. The Trial Chamber was in turn referring to a reference in the Celebici Trial Judgement, para. 341.
1312 - SFRY Military Regulations - Federal Secretariat for National Defence: Regulations Concerning the Application of the International Law of War to the Armed Forces of SFRY 1988, Art. 21, translation reprinted in M. Cherif Bassiouni’s, The Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (1996), p. 661.
1313 - Ex. P38, tab 2: “Narodni List – Official Gazette of the Croatian Community of Herzeg-Bosna”, p. 37 “Rules of Military Discipline”. Article 52 provides as follows: First instance courts shall try the following individuals:
(1) The General Staff’s military disciplinary courts shall try all non-commissioned officers and officers serving in the General Staff, all officers holding the rank of brigadier or higher, all officers holding the the position of independent battalion commanders and brigade commanders and higher positions in the HZ H-B army.
(2) Operative zone military disciplinary courts shall try non-commissioned officers and officers up to the rank of brigadier in the units or institution, who are subordinate to the operative zone commander or are in units or institutions within the area under the operative zone commander’s authority, as well as non-commissioned officers and officers up to the rank of brigadier serving in the administrative bodies of enterprises and other legal entities.”
Article 29 of those rules provides for an authorised officer to hand a case to an authorised prosecutor through official channels.
1314 - AT 699–700 (16 Dec. 2003) (Open Session).
1315 - Cited above.
1316 - See discussion above.
1317 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 426. See also paras. 412-413.
1318 - Geneva Convention IV, Article 4: “Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.”
1319 - Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 166: “ethnicity may become determinative of national allegiance”; See also Celebici Trial Judgement, paras. 263-265; Naletilic Trial Judgement, para. 207. This implies that effective allegiance to a Party to the conflict may be regarded as the crucial test, rather than relying on formal bonds (Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 166).
1320 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 426.
1321 - Trial Judgement, paras. 701, 708.
1322 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 109, 113.
1323 - Brief in Reply, para. 87.
1324 - Supplemental brief, para. 87.
1325 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.63. The Prosecution substantiates its position in Section VIII of its Respondent’s Brief. See, in particular, para. 5.19.
1326 - Trial Judgement, para. 741.
1327 - Trial Judgement, para. 741.
1328 - See Chapter III (B) above.
1329 - Trial Judgement, para. 158: “The Prosecution must establish that, at the time of the supposed detention, the allegedly censurable act was perpetrated in order to obtain a concession or gain an advantage.”
1330 - Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, paras. 311 et seq.
1331 - Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, paras. 312-3.
1332 - See also Article 1 of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 17 December 1979.
1333 - Article 34 states simply: “The taking of hostages is prohibited.” The Commentary to Geneva Convention IV states that “In accordance with the spirit of the Convention, the word ‘hostages’ must be understood in the widest possible sense”, p. 230.
1334 - Trial Judgement, paras. 630, 720, n. 1632. See also Witness Pizer, T 1575-6 (19 Aug. 1997) (Open Session) and D318, an order of the Appellant dated 18 April 1993 (and copied to the ECMM) to begin prisoner exchanges, both soldiers and civilians. See also Witness Marin, T 13,568 (15 Oct. 1998) (Open Session).
1335 - Trial Judgement, paras. 706 et seq.
1336 - Witness Mujezinovic, T 1705 et seq. (20 Aug. 1997) (Open Session).
1337 - Mujezinovic, T 1707 (20 Aug. 1997) (Open Session). The Trial Chamber proceeded to conclude (at para. 708) that all of the detainees were therefore threatened with death, “incontestably so at least for those detained at the Vitez Cultural Centre.” The Trial Chamber cites no evidence to support this conclusion.
1338 - Witness Mujezinovic, T 1712 (20 Aug. 1997) (Open Session).
1339 - Trial Judgement, para. 706; Witness Mujezinovic, T 1713 (20 Aug. 1997) (Open Session).
1340 - On that occasion the threats were made by two local HDZ officials: Ivan Santic and Pero Skopljak; Trial Judgement, para. 707.
1341 - Trial Judgement, para. 708.
1342 - Trial Judgement, para. 741.
1343 - Brief in Reply, para. 87; Appellant’s Brief, p. 113.
1344 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 113.
1345 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 113.
1346 - Trial Judgement, para. 741.
1347 - No evidence was cited in support of this finding; it was merely reasoned at para. 741 of the Trial Judgement that “it is inconceivable that as commander he did not order the defence of the town where his headquarters were located.”
1348 - Regarding the Appellant ordering the defence of Vitez, see D267 (a preparatory combat command dated 15 April 1993) and D269 (a combat command dated 16 April 1993). See also Ex. 14, Second Rule 115 Motion, p. 71. The Appellant does not dispute that he ordered the defence of Vitez, Appellant’s Brief, p. 113.
1349 - In particular, civilians detained during and after the HVO attack on the village of Gacice were detained in front of the hotel for about three hours before being returned to Gacice; Trial Judgement, paras. 549 and 714. See also Ex. D331, an Operations Report of 20 April 1993 (at 1800 hours) detailing that 47 men from Gacice were taken prisoner, but that the “women and children were sent home.” Trial Judgement, para. 741.
1350 - Trial Judgement, para. 743.
1351 - Trial Judgement, paras. 711, 715, 742-3.
1352 - See Chapter III (B) above.
1353 - Trial Judgement, paras. 709, 711 (specifically mentioning the village of Merdani).
1354 - Trial Judgement, para. 715.
1355 - Trial Judgement, para. 716. The Trial Chamber concluded that the detainees were either Muslim civilians or Muslims no longer taking part in combat operations.
1356 - Witness Hrustic, T 4814 (8 Dec. 1997) (Open Session); Trial Judgement, para. 714. Ex. D 331, an operations report from the Viteška Brigade Command, filed on 20 April 1993, describes how by 1800 47 men had been detained but the “women and children were sent home”, with no mention of the latter’s detention in front of the Hotel Vitez. Combined with Witness Hrustic’s testimony (below) that the detainees were in front of the Hotel Vitez for at most three hours, it can be deduced that they were first stationed there at approximately 1500 or later. See also Trial Judgement, para. 549.
1357 - Trial Judgement, para. 742.
1358 - Trial Judgement, para. 743.
1359 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 110-111.
1360 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 3.60-3.61.
1361 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 3.56-3.57.
1362 - Ex. D273, a combat report dated 16 April 1993.
1363 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.58. The Trial Judgement cites Ex. P187, a report by ECMM monitors (Friis-Pedersen and Morsink) dated 20 April 1993, indicating “shelling HVO HQ and the PTT building in Vitez.” The Appeals Chamber notes, however, that this assertion was made under the heading “Ceasefire-Violations (Unconfirmed)” (emphasis added), and that their report on the general situation in the Vitez area described “many refugees with luggage on the streets”, suggesting that there was no intense shelling.
1364 - Additional Protocol I, Article 51, para. 7. According to paragraph 8 of Article 51, “any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.”
1365 - Naletilic Trial Judgement, para. 303.
1366 - Kvocka Trial Judgement, para. 161 (citing Trial Judgement, para. 716). Those requirements were laid out by the Appeals Chamber in the Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, paras. 94-5. While these institutions are not reflective of the state of customary international law in 1993 and are hence of limited value in this case, the Appeals Chamber notes that this position is also reflected in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as in the Statute of the U.N. Special Court for East Timor (Article 6-6.1(b)(xxiii)) (although these instruments go further and criminalise such conduct). Under Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the Rome Statute, a war crime is defined, inter alia, as “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.” In Article 9 of the Rome Statute (Elements of Crimes, developed to assist the ICC in the interpretation and application of Articles 6, 7, and 8), war crimes of using protected persons as shields are referred to under Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii).
1367 - See Trial Judgement, para. 714. The Trial Chamber cited inter alia the evidence of a witness who testified in closed session (T 24,083-24,085) in establishing that “Vitez and in particular the HVO headquarters in the Hotel Vitez were shelled” on 20 April 1993. See also Ex. 187, a daily operational report of the Busovaca Joint Commission by Friis-Pedersen and Morsink, dated 20 April 1993 (discussed above).
1368 - Witness Marin, T 13,560 (15 Oct. 1998) (Open Session): “there was no intensive shelling of Vitez on that day”, referring to 20 April 1993. See also Ex. D331, the Operations Report discussed above, which describes heavy ABiH infantry attacks, but makes no reference to the shelling of Vitez on that day. Witness Hrustic, T 4812 (8 Dec. 1997) (Open Session), who testified that on their way from Gacice into Vitez “we could hear shelling. The children were terrified, they would hide behind us, we heard rifle fire and shelling.” This testimony does not however establish that the Hotel Vitez was in fact being shelled, rather it is evidence of the existence of combat operations in and around Vitez in general. The evidence relied upon by the Trial Chamber (para. 714, n. 1622) demonstrates rather that Vitez was shelled on the days preceding 20 April 1993. Ex. 14, Second Rule 115 Motion (the book of observations of the officer on duty in the CBOZ, otherwise known as the Appellant’s so-called “War Diary”), pp. 144–152, does not contain a reference to any shelling of Vitez on that day, but does refer to shelling on the preceding days (pp. 71, 134, 136, 139, 140, 142-3).
1369 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 111, n. 282.
1370 - See Commentary to Geneva Convention IV, p. 208: “the presence of civilians must never be used to render immune from military operations objectives which are liable to be attacked.” An alternative interpretation of the prohibition would be illogical in that, where the use of human shields is successful in deterring an attack, with no consequent harm to the human shields themselves, the objective of the perpetrator is met, and yet no criminal responsibility would attach to him.
1371 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 3.57.
1372 - Witness Hrustic, T 4815 (8 Dec. 1997) (Open Session).
1373 - Witness Hrustic, T 4816 (8 Dec. 1997) (Open Session).
1374 - The Appeals Chamber notes that the witness’s recollection of this statement by an HVO soldier is by its nature hearsay evidence. Although the Statute does not expressly address the admissibility of hearsay evidence, it is settled jurisprudence that hearsay evidence is in principle admissible. See Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1, Decision on the Defence Motion on Hearsay, 5 Aug. 1996; and Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No.: IT-95-14/1-AR73, Decision on Prosecutor’s Appeal on Admissibility of Evidence, 16 Feb. 1999, paras. 15 et seq., in which the Appeals Chamber affirmed the position that hearsay evidence is admissible as long as it is of probative value under Rule 89(C), and that “the weight or probative value to be afforded that evidence will usually be less than that given to the testimony of a witness who has given it under a form of oath and who has been cross-examined”, ibid.
1375 - Witness Hrustic, T 4814 (9 Dec. 1997) (Open Session), and T 4860 (10 Dec. 1997) (Open Session). The Appeals Chamber notes that Witness Marin testified at T 13,556 (15 Oct. 1998) (Open Session) in relation to another statement, that “HVO commander is too general a term” to identify a particular individual.
1376 - Witness Hrustic, T 4847-8 (9 Dec. 1997) (Open Session).
1377 - Trial Judgement, para. 742.
1378 - See Chapter II above.
1379 - Indeed, Witness Hrustic’s testimony sometimes suggests the contrary. For example, she testified that: “One of the soldiers said, ‘we could put them in the cinema’” (T 4814 (8 Dec. 1997) (Open Session)), such uncertainty indicating that the HVO personnel guarding the detainees had not in fact been ordered to station them outside the Hotel Vitez.
1380 - Trial Judgement, para. 716.
1381 - Second Amended Indictment, para. 12.
1382 - Second Amended Indictment, para. 5 (emphasis added).
1383 - Second Amended Indictment, para. 16 (emphasis added).
1384 - See, for example, Article 14(1) of Geneva Convention III, and Article 27 of Geneva Convention IV, the latter reading in part as follows: “Protected persons … shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity”. As stated by the Nuremberg Tribunal, “international law imposes duties and liabilities upon individuals” (Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 – 1 October 1946, vol. 22, p. 65), who therefore may be held personally responsible for failing to perform those duties (emphasis added). In the Bagilishema Trial Judgement, para. 29, n. 19, it was stated that: “An individual incurs criminal responsibility for an omission by failing to perform an act in violation of his or her duty to perform such an act.” (Emphasis added.)
1385 - Indeed, while various provisions in the Geneva Conventions impose a positive duty to act, Article 86(1) of Additional Protocol I states the position most clearly: “The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict shall repress grave breaches, and take measures necessary to suppress all other breaches, of the Conventions or of this Protocol which result from a failure to act when under a duty to do so.” See also, inter alia: Article 16 of Geneva Convention I, the preparation of records of the wounded, sick or dead; Article 14(2) of Geneva Convention III, protection of prisoners of war against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity; Articles 55 and 56 of Geneva Convention IV, the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the occupied population, and ensuring and maintaining the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory. See also the analysis of Additional Protocol I, Article 51, para. 7, above. The Appeals Chamber notes that while these obligations are technically incumbent on the States Party to the Conventions, they have resulted in the recognition of a general principle of criminal liability for omission (see Cassesse, A. International Criminal Law, p. 201).
1386 - A superior who perpetrates a crime by omission pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute will, at the same time, fail to prevent this crime. The Appeals Chamber has already considered that, in relation to a particular count, it is not appropriate to convict under both Article 7(1) and Article 7(3) of the Statute (see supra, Chapter III (C)). Thus, in such cases, Article 7(1) of the Statute will in general prevail over Article 7(3) of the Statute.
1387 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 426.
1388 - Trial Judgement, paras. 742-3.
1389 - Trial Judgement, para. 714; P187; D273; Witness Marin, T 12,307-12,309; T 24,084-24,085.
1390 - Trial Judgement, para. 714; Witness Hrustic, T 4815-4816. The Trial Chamber inferred that “this inflicted considerable mental suffering upon the persons involved;” Trial Judgement, para. 716.
1391 - Trial Judgement, para. 742; Witness Hrustic, pp. 4814-4816.
1392 - Trial Judgement, para. 742; Witness Marin, pp. 13,567-13,568. The Appeals Chamber notes that this is inferred and not actually expressly stated in the testimony.
1393 - Trial Judgement, para. 742; Witness Blaskic, T 22,463-22,464.
1394 - See Ex. 14, Second Rule 115 Motion (the book of observations of the officer on duty in the CBOZ, otherwise known as the Appellant’s “War Diary”), pp. 144–152.
1395 - Ex. 14, Second Rule 115 Motion, p. 150.
1396 - This evidence is corroborated by the testimony of Witness Marin, T 13,562-3 (15 Oct. 1998) (Open Session), although he was unsure of the Appellant’s time of departure from Vitez. Ex. D330 is a report showing that the fighting at Gacice had ended by 1800, and D331 shows that the detainees (excluding the men) had been sent home by this time. The Appellant later returned from that meeting at 2230 hours (Ex. 14, Second Rule 115 Motion, p. 152.)
1397 - Witness Hrustic, T 4816 (8 Dec. 1997) (Open Session).
1398 - The Appeals Chamber notes that Trial Judgement, para. 742, n. 1663, cited the evidence of Witness Marin (15 Oct. 1998) (Open Session) and said he “admitted that civilians from Gacice were put in danger.” While this admission is inferred from the testimony, the Appeals Chamber notes that it is not actually expressly stated.
1399 - Witness Hrustic, T 4815 (8 Dec. 1997) (Open Session)
1400 - Witness Hrustic testified that “the women were very tired, the children were frightened. My eight year old little girl was crying and saying, "please tell the man not to kill us[.]"” T 4856 (9 Dec. 1997) (Open Session).
1401 - See Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 426. See also paras. 412-3, and see above 1209.
1402 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 426.
1403 - Tadic Appeal Judgement, paras. 164-166, discussed above.
1404 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 426; and see above 1209.
1405 - Appellant’s Brief, section XI. The appeal against sentencing was the tenth ground of appeal.
1406 - Appellant’s Brief, section XI, pp. 182.
1407 - Appellant’s Brief, section XI, pp. 182.
1408 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 182, 186-187.
1409 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 183.
1410 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 183.
1411 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 187-188.
1412 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 188. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Appellant also appealed against “cumulative sentencing for duplicative charges” in relation to the cumulative convictions under Articles 2 and 3 of the Statute.
1413 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.4. The Prosecution avers that the authoritative French text of the Trial Judgement is not vague.
1414 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.5.
1415 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.72.
1416 - By its Scheduling Order of 31 October 2003, the Appeals Chamber ordered the parties to file, if they so wished, a supplementary brief in the light of the admitted additional evidence and rebuttal material, by 1 December 2003. On 1 December 2003, the Prosecution filed the Prosecution’s Request for an Extension of Page Limit for its Supplemental Filing Pursuant to the Appeals Chamber’s Scheduling Order of 31 October 2003, which was rejected in the Appeals Chamber’s “Decision on Prosecution’s Request for an Extension of Page Limit for Its Supplemental Filing,” issued on 4 December 2003. On 8 December 2003 the Prosecution filed confidentially the Prosecution’s Re-filed Supplemental Filing. However, on 16 December 2003, the Appeals Chamber issued a decision rejecting the Prosecution’s Re-filed Supplemental Filing in its entirety, since it did not adhere to the requirements of the Practice Direction. (Decision on Appellant’s Objection to Prosecution’s Re-filed Supplemental Filing of 8 December 2003, 16 Dec. 2003.)
1417 - Note further that the Appellant was not convicted under Counts 3 and 4 insofar as those counts related to the shelling of Zenica.
1418 - Trial Judgement, para. 808.
1419 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 806.
1420 - See generally on the concept of deterrence: Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 185; Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 806. These cases were cited in the Babic Trial Judgement where it was held (at para. 45): "The deterrent effect of punishment consists in discouraging the commission of similar crimes. (Foonote omitted) The main effect sought is to turn the perpetrator away from future wrongdoing (special deterrence), but it is assumed that punishment will also have the effect of discouraging others from committing the same kind of crime under the Statute (general deterrence) ( foonote omitted)) .... With regard to general deterrence, imposing a punishment serves to strengthen the legal order in which the type of conduct involved is defined as criminal, and to reassure society of the effectiveness of its penal provisions.
1421 - Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 185. Retribution and public reprobation and stigmatisation by the international community are similar purposes in the context of punishing crimes. As the Trial Chamber stated in the Jokic Sentencing Judgement, “[a]s a form of retribution, punishment expresses society’s condemnation of the criminal act and of the person who committed it and should be proportional to the seriousness of the crimes” (Jokic Sentencing Judgement, para. 31). Considering retribution as a purpose of sentencing, the Trial Chamber in Jokic “focus[ed] on the seriousness of the crimes to which Miodrag Jokic has pleaded guilty, in light of the specific circumstances of their commission” (Jokic Sentencing Judgement, para. 32).
1422 - Erdomovic Sentencing Judgement, para. 65.
1423 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 806.
1424 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 429.
1425 - Rule 101 (C); Tadic Appeal Judgement, paras. 38, 75.
1426 - Article 10(3). This factor is not relevant to the present case.
1427 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 242, and see the authorities cited there.
1428 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 241; Jelisic Appeal Judgement, para. 101
1429 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 242, Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 9. See also Jelisic Appeal Judgement, para. 99; Celebici Appeal Judgement para. 725; Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 239; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 187; Tadic Judgement in Sentencing Appeals, para. 22; Serushago Appeal Judgement, para. 32.
1430 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 242, and see the authorities cited there. See also Kupreskic et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 457.
1431 - Ibid., citing the Furundzija Appeal Judgement; the Serushago Sentencing Appeal Judgement, para. 32; the Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 187 and the Tadic Judgement in Sentencing Appeals, paras. 20-22.
1432 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras. 813, 816; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 377; Jelisic Appeal Judgement, paras. 116-117.
1433 - Momir Nikolic Sentencing Judgement, paras. 97-100 (under appeal), Furthermore, the International Tribunal is not bound to apply the more lenient penalty under the jurisdictions on the territory of the former Yugoslavia (the lex mitior-principle); see Dragan Nikolic Sentencing Judgement, paras. 157-165.
1434 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras. 816-817.
1435 - Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 21.
1436 - Trial Judgement, paras. 759-760.
1437 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 260.
1438 - Kunarac Trial Judgement, para. 29. In addition to the Krstic Appeal Judgement, the following judgements in the Appeals Chamber have consistently affirmed this formulation: Kunarac Appeal Judgement, paras. 347–349; Tadic Judgement in Sentencing Appeals, para. 21; Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras. 813 and 820; Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 418.
1439 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 731; Kupreškic Appeal Judgement, para. 442.
1440 - Celebici Trial Judgement, para. 1225, cited with approval by Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 182; Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 731; Krstic Appeal Judgement, n. 431.
1441 - Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 249.
1442 - Kvocka et al. Trial Judgement, para. 702 (under appeal).
1443 - Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 352.
1444 - Krnojelac Trial Judgement, para. 512 (not addressed on appeal).
1445 - Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 260 (“The Appeals Chamber considers that, even where no blood relationships have been established, a trier of fact would be right to presume that the accused knew that his victim did not live cut off from the world but had established bonds with others.”)
1446 - Article 24(2) of the Statute.
1447 - Article 24(2) of the Statute; Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 717 (noting “the overriding obligation to individualise a penalty to fit the individual circumstances of the accused and the gravity of the crime.”). See also Furundzia Appeal Judgement, para. 237, cited in Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 721.
1448 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 780.
1449 - Rule 101(B)(i).
1450 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 763.
1451 - Jokic Sentencing Judgement, paras. 61-62. See also Tadic Appeal Judgement, paras. 55-56.
1452 - Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, paras. 172-173: “The first issue is whether discriminatory intent can be used as an aggravating factor. To that question the answer is in the affirmative”. See also the Vasiljevic Trial Judgement, para. 277: “[T]he discriminatory purpose of the crimes and the selection of victims based on their ethnicity … can only … [constitute an aggravating factor] where the crime for which an accused is convicted does not include a discriminatory state of mind as an element. The crime of persecution in Article 5(h) of the Statute already includes such an element. Such a discriminatory state of mind goes to the seriousness of the offence, but it may not additionally aggravate that offence.” (Emphasis added.). See also Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 357.
1453 - Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 357, citing Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 508 (stating that a discriminatory intent “is an indispensable ingredient of the offence only with regard to those crimes for which this is expressly required, that is, for Article 5(h), concerning various types of persecution.”). See also Todorovic Trial Judgement, para. 57 (“Since a discriminatory intent is one of the basic elements of the crime of persecution, this aspect of Todorovic’s criminal conduct is already encompassed in a consideration of the offence. [I]t should not be treated separately as an aggravating factor.”).
1454 - Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 356; Todorovic Sentencing Judgement, para. 65.
1455 - Krstic Trial Judgement, para. 708.
1456 - Furundzija Trial Judgement, para. 281. This issue was not raised on appeal (see Furundzija Appeal Judgement).
1457 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, paras. 736-737.
1458 - Jelisic Appeal Judgement, para. 86; Kayishema Appeal Judgement, para. 351.
1459 - Krstic Trial Judgement, paras. 711-712. See also Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 258 (“There was an element of premeditation in the decision forcibly to transfer the civilian population, but it was within the discretion of the Trial Chamber to discount this factor from having any bearing on the sentence imposed.”)
1460 - Kunarac Trial Judgement, para. 867, and Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 353.
1461 - Kunarac et al. Trial Judgement, para. 864, 866; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 355.
1462 - Furundzija Trial Judgement, para. 283: “[T]he Trial Chamber considers the fact that Witness A was a civilian detainee and at the complete mercy of her captors to be a further aggravating circumstance.”
1463 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 788 (referring to the behaviour of the accused during trial proceedings, which “is relevant to a Trial Chamber’s determination of, for example, remorse for the acts committed or, on the contrary, total lack of compassion.”)
1464 - Tadic Sentencing Judgement, para. 19 (referring to the “horrific conditions at the camps established by Bosnian Serb authorities in opština Prijedor”).
1465 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 783; Plavšic Sentencing Judgement, para. 64.
1466 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 763: “The Appeals Chamber agrees that only those matters which are proved beyond reasonable doubt against an accused may be the subject of an accused’s sentence or taken into account in aggravation of that sentence”; Kunarac Trial Judgement, para. 847: “The Trial Chamber underlines its view that fairness requires the Prosecutor to prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, [footnote omitted] and that the Defence needs to prove mitigating circumstances only on the balance of probabilities.”
1467 - The absence of a mitigating factor does not itself constitute an aggravating factor (Plavsic Sentencing Judgement, para. 64).
1468 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 186-7.
1469 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 186.
1470 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.45.
1471 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.46.
1472 - Article 25 of the Statute.
1473 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 187.
1474 - Trial Judgement, para. 785: “The motive of the crime may also constitute an aggravating circumstance when it is particularly flagrant … the Trial Chamber takes note of the ethnic and religious discrimination which the victims suffered. In consequence, the violations are to be analysed as persecution which, in itself, justifies a more severe penalty.” (Emphasis added.)
1475 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 187.
1476 - Kunarac Trial Judgement, para. 852. The issue was not addressed in the Kunarac Appeal Judgement.
1477 - See Trial Judgement, paras. 783-784.
1478 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.70.
1479 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 8.70-8.71.
1480 - Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, paras. 172-173 ( omitted).
1481 - Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 172-173 (see above, together with Todorovic Sentencing Judgement, para. 57).
1482 - Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 268.
1483 - Ibid., para. 269.
1484 - Jelisic Appeal Judgement, para. 49. See also Kunarac Appeal Judgement, paras. 103 and 153; and Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 102: “It is the Appeals Chamber’s belief that this distinction between intent and motive must also be applied to the other crimes laid down in the Statute.”
1485 - Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 153.
1486 - Kayishema and Ruzindana Appeal Judgement, para. 161, cited in Niyitegeka Appeal Judgement, para. 52.
1487 - Namely, persecution, of which the Trial Chamber found the Appellant guilty.
1488 - See the discussion of the purposes of sentencing above.
1489 - Rule 101(B)(ii). See also Article 24 of the Statute.
1490 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 777.
1491 - Jokic Sentencing Judgement, paras. 95-96; Todorovic Sentencing Judgement, para. 88; Rule 101(B)(ii).
1492 - Jelisic Appeal Judgement, para. 122, Jokic Sentencing Judgement, para. 76.
1493 - Jokic Sentencing Judgement, para. 89; Erdemovic Second Sentencing Judgement, para. 16(iii).
1494 - Jokic Sentencing Judgement, para. 73.
1495 - Erdemovic Second Sentencing Judgement, para. 16(i); Kupreškic Appeal Judgement, para. 459.
1496 - Jokic Sentencing Judgement, para. 100; Nikolic Sentencing Judgement, para. 268.
1497 - Judgement, paras. 362, 408.
1498 - Jokic Sentencing Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, paras. 90-91, 103.
1499 - Erdemovic Second Trial Judgement, para. 17 (stating that duress “may be taken into account only by way of mitigation.”).
1500 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 273.
1501 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 590.
1502 - Jokic Trial Judgement, para. 100.
1503 - Sikirica Sentencing Judgement, paras. 195, 229.
1504 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 271; Simic Trial Judgement, para. 98.
1505 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 185-6.
1506 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 763. See also Appellant’s Brief, p. 185.
1507 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 186.
1508 - The Appellant was originally indicted, along with Dario Kordic, Mario Cerkez, Ivica Santic, Pero Skopljak, and Zlatko Aleksovski in a single indictment dated 10 November 1995.
1509 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 186.
1510 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 8.53-8.54.
1511 - Trial Judgement, para. 774.
1512 - Kunarac Trial Judgement, para. 868: “The fact that [the accused] voluntarily surrendered to the International Tribunal is a factor in mitigation of his sentence. That an accused may be said to be under an obligation to surrender to the International Tribunal does not mean that doing so should not be considered in mitigation. Treating such voluntary surrender as a mitigating factor may inspire other indictees to similarly surrender themselves, thus enhancing the effectiveness of the work of the Tribunal.”
1513 - Trial Judgement, para. 776.
1514 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 186, n. 532.
1515 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.60 (citing Trial Judgement, para. 775).
1516 - Trial Judgement, para. 775.
1517 - Trial Judgement, para. 775. That standard was recognized in the Simic Trial Judgement, para. 1066.
1518 - See above, Chapter XI on Alleged Errors Concerning the Appellant’s Responsibility for Detention-Related Crimes and Section VII on Alleged Errors Concerning the Appellant’s Responsibility for Crimes Committed in Ahmici.
1519 - Trial Judgement, paras. 771, 780-781.
1520 - Witness Philip Watkins, AT 350 (Open Session) (9 Dec. 2003); Witness BA3, AT 397 (Closed Session) (9 Dec. 2003); Witness BA1, AT 175 (Closed Session) (8 Dec. 2003); Ivica Pervan, T 14,440-1 (Open Session) (3 Nov. 1998); Witness Henrik Morsink, T 9939 (Open Session) (2 July 1998); Witness Alistair Duncan, T 9172 (Open Session) (3 June 1998); Witness Fuad Zeco, T 2884 (Open Session) (26 Sept. 1997).
1521 - Witness Philip Watkins, AT 275-6 (Open Session) (9 Dec. 2003); Witness BA1, AT 175 (Closed Session) (8 Dec. 2003).
1522 - Witness Philip Watkins, AT 277 (Open Session) (9 Dec. 2003), as opposed to his opinions of other, political leaders. Witness BA3, a senior member of the ABiH and opponent of the Appellant, testified as follows: “I really did have a large number of opportunities to be in direct contact with General Tihomir Blaškic. I personally respect him, and there are my colleagues in the army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina who believe that General Tihomir Blaškic is a professionally capable military man, a soldier, a general, that he is of a firm character, a man of integrity, and I'm quite sure, and I'm confident, on the basis of my knowledge of General Tihomir Blaškic, that he would not issue an order for ethnic cleansing, nor for any kind of crime.” AT 397 (Closed Session) (9 Dec. 2003). And further: “I'm sure that had it not been for the war, that Blaškic would never have commanded units that shot at Muslims, killed Muslims, and I am also sure that Mr. Blaškic would have acted in a totally different manner had the situation been different. And I'm sure that he was never in favour of the conflicts between the BH army and the Croatian Defence Council, and he also was trying to avoid and prevent such conflict” AT 448 (Closed Session) (10 Dec. 2003).
1523 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 788.
1524 - Trial Judgement, para. 780.
1525 - Tadic Sentencing Appeal Judgement, paras. 38, 75.
1526 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 183, 186.
1527 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.52.
1528 - AT 837 and AT 843 (Open Session) (17 Dec. 2003).
1529 - AT 838 (Open Session) (17 Dec. 2003).
1530 - AT 838 (Open Session) (17 Dec. 2003).
1531 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 186-7.
1532 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.63.
1533 - Jokic Sentencing Judgement, para. 76; Plavsic Sentencing Judgement, paras. 80–81; Milan Simic Sentencing Judgement, para. 84.
1534 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 780.
1535 - Trial Judgement, paras. 773, 775, and 777.
1536 - Brief in Reply, para. 160.
1537 - Appellant’s Brief, pp. 182-184.
1538 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.5-8.7.
1539 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 8.4. Paragraph 807 of the Trial Judgement is reproduced below.
1540 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 8.9-8.11.
1541 - Respondent’s Brief, paras. 8.8-8.9; and see below.
1542 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.15.
1543 - Rule 101 was amended at the Twenty Third Plenary Session: 29 November - 1 & 13 December 2000 (1st and 13 December 2000) (IT/32/Rev. 19), effective 19 January 2001. Rule 87(C) of the Rules, which currently allows the International Tribunal to decide whether “to exercise its power to impose a single sentence reflecting the totality of the criminal conduct of the accused”, was not in force at the date of the Trial Judgement.
1544 - Trial Judgement, para. 805 (citing Kambanda Judgement and Sentence, para. 102: “nothing in the Statute or Rules expressly states that a Chamber must impose a separate sentence for each count on which an accused is convicted”, and Serushago Sentencing Judgement).
1545 - Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 342.
1546 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 741. The Appellant’s Brief, p. 154 and note 514, discussed the practice of national legal systems regarding how a sentence must “expressly reflect and relate to the individual circumstances of a case.”
1547 - Trial Judgement, para. 807. The authoritative French version of this operative paragraph reads as follows: “En l’espèce, les crimes reprochés à l'accusé ont été qualifiés de plusieurs manières distinctes mais font partie d'un ensemble unique de faits criminels, commis sur un territoire géographiquement déterminé, au cours d’une période de temps relativement étendue mais dont la longueur même a contribué à asseoir la qualification de crime contre l’humanité et sans qu'il soit possible de procéder entre eux à une distinction de l'intention ou du mobile criminels. En outre, la Chambre observe que les crimes autres que le crime de persécution retenus à l’encontre de l’accusé reposent en totalité sur les mêmes faits que ceux visés pour les autres crimes poursuivis à l’encontre de l’accusé. En d’autres termes, il n’est pas possible d’identifier quels faits seraient concernés par les différents chefs d’accusation que ceux supportant la poursuite et la condamnation au titre du chef 1 – Persécution, lequel vise au demeurant une période de temps plus longue qu’aucun des autres chefs. Vu cette cohérence d’ensemble, la Chambre considère qu'il y a lieu d'infliger une peine unique pour la totalité des crimes dont l'accusé a été reconnu coupable.” 
1548 - Respondent’s Brief, para. 8.8.
1549 - Respondent’s brief, para. 8.8.
1550 - Ibid., para. 8.9. The Prosecution excludes those convictions which it concedes were impermissibly cumulative (see above).
1551 - Trial Judgement, para. 807.
1552 - See Simic Trial Judgement, para. 33, regarding the various objectives of sentencing, inter alia deterrence and retribution. See also Trial Judgement, para. 761, regarding the purposes and objectives of sentencing.
1553 - This so-called ‘totality principle’ was considered in some detail by the Appeals Chamber in the Celebici Appeal Judgement at para. 429, note 663.
1554 - Appellant’s Brief, p. 186.
1555 - Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 725. See also Serushago Appeal Judgement, para. 32.
1556 - The Appeals Chamber notes the findings of the Chamber in the Vasiljevic Appeal, para. 9: “an appeal from sentencing is a procedure of a corrective nature rather than a de novo sentencing proceeding.” The Vasiljevic case is distinguished from the instant case in that the former was able to apply the “discernible error” test in the circumstances of that case.
1557 - The Appeals Chamber clarifies that the Appellant’s surrender only subsequent to preparing his defence has no effect on this factor. The Trial Judgement (para. 773) found this to be a mitigating factor.
1558 - AT 844 (Open Session) (17 Dec. 2003).
1559 - In the Dragan Nikolic Trial Judgement, para. 271, Trial Chamber II considered whether the length of proceedings could constitute a mitigating circumstance. In that case, the decision was that the time spent awaiting a decision was not disproportional, but the Appeals Chamber notes that Nikolic did not surrender voluntarily. Rather, he: “was already well informed about the indictment against him at the end of 1994 or beginning of 1995, of course not having any obligation to surrender voluntarily to this Tribunal. The Accused was apprehended by SFOR only in the year 2000. Taking into account, inter alia, the lengthy period of time necessary for preparing and deciding his motions on jurisdiction, the time spent in the United Nations Detention Unit cannot be regarded as disproportional.” The Appeals Chamber considers that in this case, the time spent in custody before and during the proceedings is a factor in mitigation of sentence. This is because in this case the International Tribunal has been hampered by the complexity of these proceedings, and the Appeals Chamber has had to deal with the sheer volume of additional material submitted on appeal (a burden which could easily have been avoided had the material been made available to the parties at trial, but which was beyond the parties’ control).
1560 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 24(c)(ii).
1561 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 40; Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, paras. 7-8; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, paras. 11-12; Kunarac Appeal Judgement, paras. 37-48, 243; Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 434; Kupreškic Appeal Judgement, para. 30; Furundzija Appeal Judgement, paras. 37, 40; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 63; Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 64.
1562 - Statute of the International Tribunal, Article 25(1)(b).
1563 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 24(c)(ii).
1564 - Krstic Appeal Judgement, para. 40; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 11; Kupreškic Appeal Judgement, para. 32; Furundzija Appeal Judgement, para. 37; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 63.
1565 - Prosecutor v. Kupreškic, Case No. IT-95-16-A, Decision on the Admission of Additional Evidence Following Hearing of 30 March 2001, 30 May 2001 (redacted version), para. 8 (“New material will be considered alongside the material already in the trial record to see if the Trial Chamber’s judgement is sustainable by the newly enlarged record on appeal and the usual deference will be given to a Trial Chamber’s findings of fact insofar as they were based on the material before the court at the time.”)
1566 - Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 107.
1567 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 23.
1568 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 13.
1569 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 13.
1570 - Pursuant to the version of Rule 109(C) (As revised on 20 October and 12 November 1997) (IT/32/Rev. 12) in force at the relevant time, the parties designated the parts of the trial record which each considered necessary for the decision on the appeal. Both the Appellant and the Prosecutor agreed that the record should consist of the trial record certified by the Registrar consisting of all the transcripts, documents, and exhibits, with minor differences. The Prosecutor removed the “list of witnesses”, and the Appellant added those documents tendered for admission into evidence but excluded. See Certificate on the Trial Record, 13 April 2000; Internal Memorandum from Prosecution Senior Appeals Counsel to Deputy Registrar entitled “Record on Appeal,” 13 June 2000; Appellant’s Designation of Record on Appeal, 14 June 2000.
1571 - Prosecutor v. Slobodan Miloševic, Case No. IT-02-54-AR73.6, Decision on the Interlocutory Appeal by the Amici Curiae against the Trial Chamber Order Concerning the Presentation and Preparation of the Defence Case, 20 January 2004, para. 7; Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 481 (“The Trial Chamber did not refer to the testimony of Assa’ad Harraz in the Judgement in reaching its findings on this issue, but there is no indication that the Trial Chamber did not weigh all the evidence that was presented to it. A Trial Chamber is not required to articulate in its judgement every step of its reasoning in reaching particular findings.”); Kupreškic Appeal Judgement, para. 458 (“failure to list in the Trial Judgement, each and every circumstance placed before [the Trial Chamber] and considered, does not necessarily mean that the Trial Chamber either ignored or failed to evaluate the factor in question”).
1572 - Trial Judgement, para. 463.
1573 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 385.
1574 - Trial Transcript p. 18457. See also Trial Transcript pp. 18454-18456.
1575 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 395.
1576 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 393.
1577 - Trial Transcript p. 9142. See also Trial Transcript pp. 9141, 9151.
1578 - Prosecution v. Kupreškic, Case No. IT-95-16-A, Decision on the Admission of Additional Evidence Following Hearing of 30 March 2001, 30 May 2001 (redacted version), para. 8 (“[When admitting material pursuant to Rule 115(B)] the Appeals Chamber must give its best judgement as to the importance of the new material in light of its familiarity with the trial record at that time. This means that even after a finding that the material has satisfied the requirements of Rule 115(B) the Chamber on further consideration and in light of the briefs and arguments may decide that indeed it is not so important that it would have changed the result and requires the overturning of the verdict or the alteration of a sentence.”)
1579 - Exhibit 1 to the Second Rule 115 Motion, p. 4.
1580 - Exhibit 1 to the Second Rule 115 Motion, p. 4.
1581 - Exhibit 1 to the Second Rule 115 Motion, p. 11.
1582 - Decision on Evidence, 31 October 2003, p. 5.
1583 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 421.
1584 - Decision on Evidence, 31 October 2003, p. 6.
1585 - Trial Judgement, paras. 437, 749-750.
1586 - Trial Judgement, para. 474.
1587 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 332.
1588 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 330.
1589 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 331.
1590 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 333.
1591 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 333.
1592 - Trial Judgement, para. 437.
1593 - Trial Judgement, para. 437.
1594 - Trial Judgement, para. 437.
1595 - Trial Judgement, para. 437.
1596 - Trial Judgement, para. 470.
1597 - Trial Judgement, para. 471.
1598 - Trial Judgement, para. 472.
1599 - Trial Judgement, para. 402.
1600 - Trial Judgement, para. 407, referring in particular to Witnesses Ahmic, Kavazovic, Hadžihasanovic and to Exhibit P647.
1601 - Trial Judgement, para. 408. See also Trial Judgement para. 409.
1602 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 333.
1603 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, paras. 333, 335.
1604 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, paras. 333-334.
1605 - Trial Transcript pp. 23222-23225.
1606 - AT 210 -214 (8 Dec. 2003) (closed session); AT 391-396 (09 Dec. 2003) (closed session). The evidence given by these two witnesses is summarised in the Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, 691.
1607 - Trial Judgement, paras. 402-410, 437.
1608 - Trial Judgement, para. 407.
1609 - Exhibits PA51 and PA52.
1610 - Trial Judgement, paras. 400, 440.
1611 - Trial Judgement, paras. 396-398.
1612 - Trial Exhibit D245.
1613 - Trial Judgement, paras. 397-399; Trial Exhibits P691 and P692.
1614 - Trial Judgement, para. 399.
1615 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 339.
1616 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 339.
1617 - Trial Transcript, p. 19031.
1618 - Exhibit 14 to the Second Rule 115 Motion, p. 70.
1619 - Exhibit PA10.
1620 - AT 599-600 (16 Dec. 2003).
1621 - AT 745-748 (17 Dec. 2003).
1622 - Trial Judgement, para. 443.
1623 - Judgement of the Appeals Chamber, para. 342.
1624 - See e.g. Exhibit 14 to the Second Rule 115 Motion (War Diary) which notes thirteen contacts between the Appellant and Kordic on 16 April 1994.
1625 - See e.g. the 59 trial exhibits listed in Prosecution Final Trial Brief, Book II, pp. 46-50.
1626 - See e.g. the 15 trial exhibits listed in Prosecution Final Trial Brief, Book II, pp. 50-51.
1627 - Trial Judgement, para. 428.
1628 - Trial Judgement, paras. 391-393.
1629 - Trial Judgement, para. 387.
1630 - Trial Judgement, para. 411.
1631 - Trial Judgement, paras. 388-389.
1632 - Trial Judgement, para. 389.
1633 - Trial Judgement, para. 390. See also Trial Judgement, para. 415.
1634 - Trial Judgement, paras. 390, 412-418, 750.
1635 - Trial Judgement, para. 474.
1636 - Trial Judgement, paras. 487, 753.
1637 - Trial Judgement, para. 469.
1638 - Defendant’s Notice of Appeal, 17 Mar. 2000.
1639 - Appellant’s Motion to Suspend Briefing Schedule, or Alternatively, for Extension of Time to File Appellate Brief, 4 Apr. 2000.
1640 - Order, 19 May 2000.
1641 - Order, 16 Oct. 2001.
1642 - Appellant’s Supplemental Filing Re: Motion to Suspend Briefing Schedule, or Alternatively, for Extension of Time to File Appellate Brief, 27 June 2000, confidential (“Supplemental Filing”).
1643 - Prosecution Response to Appellant’s Supplemental Filing of 27 June 2000 to Suspend Briefing Schedule, 7 July 2000, confidential.
1644 - Appellant’s Additional Supplemental Filing Re: Motion to Suspend Briefing Schedule, or Alternatively, for Extension of Time to File Appellate Brief and Reply to Prosecutor’s Response of 7 July 2000, 20 July 2000, confidential (“Additional Supplemental Filing”); Corrigendum to Appellant’s Additional Supplemental Filing Re: Motion to Suspend Briefing Schedule, or Alternatively, for Extension of Time to File Appellate Brief and Reply to Prosecutor’s Response of 7 July 2000, 1 Aug. 2000, confidential.
1645 - Prosecution Response to Appellant’s Additional Supplemental Filing of 20 July 2000 to Suspend Briefing Schedule, or Alternatively, Extension of Time to File Appellate Brief, 31 July 2000, confidential.
1646 - Blaskic 26 September 2000 Decision, paras. 68-69.
1647 - Ibid., para. 69.
1648 - Appellant’s Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Appellant’s Brief and Request for Authorization to Exceed the Page Limit for Appellant’s Brief, 26 Oct. 2001.
1649 - Prosecution Response to the Appellant’s Motion to Extend the Deadline for Filing Appellant’s Brief and Request for Authorization to Exceed the Page Limit for Appellant’s Brief, 5 Nov. 2001.
1650 - Decision on Appellant’s Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Appellant’s Brief and Request for Authorization to Exceed the Page Limit for Appellant’s Brief,” 7 Nov. 2001.
1651 - Appellant’s Brief on Appeal, 14 Jan. 2002, confidential (“Appellant’s Brief”).
1652 - Redacted Version of Appellant’s Brief on Appeal, 7 March 2002.
1653 - Revised Redacted Version of Appellant’s Brief on Appeal, 4 July 2002.
1654 - Appellant’s Appendix of Non-Tribunal Authorities Cited in Brief on Appeal, 4 Feb. 2002.
1655 - Appellant’s Appendix of Additional Non-Tribunal Authority Cited in Support of Brief in Reply, 3 June 2002.
1656 - Decision on Prosecution’s Request for an Extension of Time and for Authorisation to Exceed the Page Limit for Its Response to the Appellant’s Brief, 29 Jan. 2002.
1657 - Book of Authorities to the Prosecution Response to the Defence Appeal Brief Filed on 1 May 2002, 1 May 2002.
1658 - Public Redacted Version of the Prosecution’s Respondent’s Brief (Unredacted Version filed on 1 May 2002), 14 June 2002.
1659 - Prosecution’s Clarifications to Its Respondent’s Brief and Prosecution’s Objections to the Scope of the Appellant’s Reply Brief, 26 June 2002, confidential.
1660 - Appellant’s Response to Prosecution’s Clarifications to Its Respondent’s Brief and Prosecution’s Objections to the Scope of the Appellant’s Reply Brief, 8 July 2002, confidential.
1661 - Decision on Prosecution’s Clarification to Its Respondent’s Brief and Prosecution’s Objections to the Scope of the Appellant’s Brief in Reply, 24 Sept. 2002.
1662 - Decision on the Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time and Page Limits Re Appellant’s Reply Brief. 26 Apr. 2002.
1663 - Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time and Page Limits Re Appellant’s Reply Brief, 3 May 2002.
1664 - Decision on Motion for Extension of Time and Page Limits for Appellant’s Brief in Reply, 7 May 2002.
1665 - Appellant’s Brief in Reply, 3 June 2002, confidential.
1666 - Public Version of Appellant’s Brief in Reply, 14 June 2002.
1667 - Appellant’s Supplemental Brief on Appeal, 1 Dec. 2003, confidential, (“Supplemental Brief”).
1668 - Decision on Appellant’s Application for Extension of Page Limits for Supplementary Brief on Appeal, 24 Nov. 2003.
1669 - Redacted Public Version of Appellant’s Supplemental Brief on Appeal, 22 Mar. 2004.
1670 - Prosecution’s Request for an Extension of Page Limit for its Supplemental Filing Pursuant to the Appeals Chamber’s Scheduling Order of 31 October 2003, 1 Dec. 2003.
1671 - Decision on Appellant’s Objection to Prosecution’s Re-filed Supplemental Filing of 8 December 2003, 16 Dec. 2003.
1672 - The version of Rule 115 applicable to this case is the text reproduced in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence IT32/Rev.19, of 19 January 2001, originally adopted on 11 February 1994. The applicable text reads as follows:
(A) A party may apply by motion to present before the Appeals Chamber additional evidence which was not available to it at the trial. Such motion must be served on the other party and filed with the Registrar not less than fifteen days before the date of the hearing.
(B) The Appeals Chamber shall authorise the presentation of such evidence if it considers that the interests of justice so require.
1673 - Appellant’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, in Accordance with the Appeals Chamber’s Decision of 26 September 2000, 29 Dec. 2000.
1674 - Prosecution Response to “Appellant’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, in Accordance with the Appeals Chamber’s Decision of 26 September 2000,” 8 Jan. 2001.
1675 - Appellant’s Brief in Support of Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, in Accordance with the Appeals Chamber’s Decision of 26 September 2000 (“First Rule 115 Motion”), 19 Jan. 2001.
1676 - Exhibits to Appellant’s Brief in Support of Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, in Accordance with the Appeals Chamber’s Decision of 26 September 2000, 22 Jan. 2001.
1677 - Errata to Appellant’s Brief in Support of Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, in Accordance with the Appeals Chamber’s Decision of 26 September 2000, 22 Mar. 2001.
1678 - Order Granting Extension of Time, 20 Feb. 2001; Order Granting Extension of Time, 12 Mar. 2001.
1679 - Prosecution Response to Appellant’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 19 Apr. 2001, confidential.
1680 - Order, 6 Sept. 2001.
1681 - Public Version of Confidential Document Filed on 19 April 2001 – Prosecution Response to Appellant’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 13 Sept. 2001.
1682 - Decision on Appellant’s Request for an Extension of Time and Authorization to Exceed the Page Limit on his Reply to the Prosecutor’s Response to Appellant’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 20 Apr. 2001; Decision on the Appellant’s Motion for Access to Confidential Tribunal Decisions, and for Additional Extension of Time, 24 May 2001.
1683 - Appellant’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Appellant’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, in Accordance with the Appeals Chamber’s Decision of 26 September, 18 June 2001, confidential.
1684 - Declarations and Exhibits in Support of Appellant’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Appellant’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, in Accordance with the Appeals Chamber’s Decision of 26 September, 18 June 2001, confidential.
1685 - Appellant's Response to Appeals Chamber's Order of 06 September 2001 Regarding the Filing of a Public Version of Appellant's 18 June 2001 Reply Memorandum in Support of Appellant’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115, 13 Sept. 2001.
1686 - Appellant's Reply Memorandum in Support of Appellant’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, in Accordance with the Appeals Chamber’s Decision of 26 September 2000, 13 Sept. 2001.
1687 - Declarations and Exhibits in Support of Appellant’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Appellant’s Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, in Accordance with the Appeals Chamber’s Decision of 26 September 2000, 13 Sept. 2001.
1688 - Decision on the “Appellant’s Request for Authorization to Exceed the Page Limit for Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115,” 18 Oct. 2001.
1689 - Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115 (“Second Rule 115 Motion”), 18 Oct. 2001, confidential.
1690 - Order Granting Extension of Time, 1 Nov. 2001.
1691 - Prosecution Response to Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 10 Dec. 2001, made confidential on 11 Dec. 2001 (“Response to the Appellant’s Second Rule 115 Motion”).
1692 - Decision on Appellant’s Request for Extension of Time and Page Limit to Reply to the Prosecutor’s Response to Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 14 Dec. 2001.
1693 - Appellant’s Reply Brief in Support of Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 7 Jan. 2002, confidential, (“Appellant’s Reply Brief in Support of his Second Rule 115 Motion”).
1694 - Redacted Version of Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 7 Mar. 2002.
1695 - Public Redacted Version of “Prosecution Response to Appellant’s Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115,” 7 Mar. 2002.
1696 - Redacted Version of Appellant’s Reply Brief in Support of Second Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 7 Mar. 2002.
1697 - Decision on the “Appellant’s Request for Authorization to Exceed the Page Limit for Appellant’s Third Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115,” 10 Apr. 2002.
1698 - Appellant’s Third Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115 (“Third Rule 115 Motion”), 10 June 2002, confidential.
1699 - Exhibits to Appellant’s Third Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 10 June 2002, confidential.
1700 - Decision on Prosecution’s Request for an Extension of Time and for an Authorisation to Exceed the Page Limit for its Response to the Appellant’s Third Rule 115 Motion, 18 June 2002, confidential; Decision on “Prosecution Urgent Request for an Additional Extension of Time for Its Response to the Appellant’s Third 115 Motion,” 12 July 2002.
1701 - Prosecution Response to Appellant’s Third Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 12 Aug. 2002, confidential.
1702 - Decision on Motion for Extension of Time and Page Limits for Appellant’s Reply, 28 Aug. 2002.
1703 - Appellant’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Third Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 9 Sept. 2002, confidential.
1704 - Supplemental Declarations Filed in Support of Appellant’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Third Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 9 Sept. 2002, confidential.
1705 - Prosecution’s Request for Leave to File Supplemental Response and Supplemental Response to Appellant’s Third Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal, 9 Oct. 2002, confidential.
1706 - Appellant’s Response to Prosecution’s Request for Leave to File Supplemental Response and Supplemental Response to Appellant’s Third Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal, 21 Oct. 2002, confidential.
1707 - Order on Prosecution’s Request for Leave to File Supplemental Response, 31 Oct. 2002.
1708 - Prosecution Motion to Disallow Evidence and Arguments Filed for First Time in Reply Brief to Appellant’s Third Additional Evidence Motion, 18 Sept. 2002, confidential.
1709 - Appellant’s Response to Prosecution Motion to Disallow Evidence and Arguments Filed for First Time in Reply Brief to Appellant’s Third Additional Evidence Motion, 30 Sept. 2002, confidential.
1710 - Prosecution Reply to “Appellant’s Response to Prosecution Motion to Disallow Evidence and Arguments filed for First Time in Reply Brief to Appellant’s Third Additional Evidence Motion,” 4 Oct. 2002, confidential.
1711 - Decision on Prosecution’s Motion to Disallow Evidence and Arguments Filed for the First Time in Reply Brief to Appellant’s Third Additional Evidence Motion, 28 Nov. 2002, confidential.
1712 - Order, 8 May 2003.
1713 - Appellant’s Fourth Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115 (“Fourth Rule 115 Motion”), 12 May 2003, confidential.
1714 - Exhibits in Support of Appellant’s Fourth Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal pursuant to Rule 115, 20 May 2003, confidential.
1715 - Appellant’s Corrected Fourth Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal pursuant to Rule 115, 13 June 2003, confidential.
1716 - Redacted Public Version of Appellant’s Corrected Fourth Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 8 Aug. 2003.
1717 - Exhibits in Support of Redacted Public Version of Appellant’s Corrected Fourth Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 11 Aug. 2003.
1718 - Decision on Prosecution’s Request for an Extension of Time and for Authorization to Exceed the Page Limit for Its Response to the Appellant’s Fourth Rule 115 Motion, 29 May 2003.
1719 - Prosecution’s Response to Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion Pursuant to Rule 115, 18 June 2003, confidential.
1720 - Corrected Version of Prosecution’s Response to Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion Pursuant to Rule 115, 30 June 2003, confidential; Corrigenda to Prosecution’s Response to Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion Pursuant to Rule 115, 30 June 2003, confidential.
1721 - Public Redacted Version of the Corrected Version of the Prosecution’s Response to the Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion Pursuant to Rule 115, 21 Aug. 2003.
1722 - Decision on Appellant’s Request for Extension of Page Limits, 26 June 2003.
1723 - Appellant’s Reply Brief in Support of Fourth Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 30 June 2003, confidential.
1724 - Decision on Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez’s Request for Access to Tihomir Blaskic’s Fourth Rule 115 Motion and Associated Documents, 28 January.
1725 - Appellant’s Supplemental Redacted Reply Brief in Support of Fourth Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 9 Feb. 2004, confidential.
1726 - Appellant’s Supplemental Redacted Corrected Fourth Motion to Admit Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 9 Feb. 2004, confidential.
1727 - Scheduling Order, 22 Nov. 2002.
1728 - Prosecution’s Request for Extension of Time for Filing its Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to Additional Evidence Admitted on Appeal and Variation of Page Limits, 7 Jan. 2003.
1729 - Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to Additional Evidence Admitted on Appeal, 7 Jan. 2003 (“First Filing”).
1730 - Decision on the Prosecution’s Request for Extension of Time for Filing its Rebuttal Evidence and Variation of Page Limits, 9 Jan. 2003. The Prosecution filed confidentially the “Prosecution’s Notice of Redactions and Corrigenda to Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to Additional Evidence Admitted on Appeal Dated 6 January 2003” on 24 Jan. 2003.
1731 - Public Redacted Version of the Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to Additional Evidence Admitted on Appeal (Dated 6 January 2003), 24 Jan. 2003.
1732 - Decision on Appellant’s Application for Extension of Filing Deadline and Page Limits, 15 Jan. 2003; Decision on Appellant’s Application for Further Extension of Filing Deadline, 6 Feb. 2003, confidential.
1733 - Appellant’s Opposition to Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to Additional Evidence Admitted on Appeal, 3 Mar. 2003 (“Appellant’s Opposition to the First Filing”).
1734 - Public Redacted Version of Appellant’s Opposition to Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to Additional Evidence Admitted on Appeal, 7 Apr. 2003.
1735 - Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion on Appeal, 16 July 2003, confidential (“Second Filing”).
1736 - Public Redacted Version of the Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to the Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion on Appeal, 22 Aug. 2003; Notice Regarding the Redaction of the Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to the Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion on Appeal, 22 Aug. 2003.
1737 - Decision on Appellant’s Request for Extension of Page Limits and Filing Deadline, 24 July 2003.
1738 - Appellant’s Opposition to Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to the Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion on Appeal, 4 Aug. 2003, confidential (“Appellant’s Opposition to the Prosecution’s Second Filing”).
1739 - Prosecution’s Reply to the Appellant’s Opposition to Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Argument in Response to the Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion on Appeal, 15 Aug. 2003, confidential (“Prosecution’s Reply to the Appellant’s Opposition to the Prosecution’s Second Filing”).
1740 - Public Redacted Version of the Prosecution’s Reply to the “Appellant’s Opposition to Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to the Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion on Appeal,” 22 Aug. 2003.
1741 - Order, 25 Aug. 2003.
1742 - Appellant’s Sur-Reply to Prosecution’s Reply to the Appellant’s Opposition to Prosecution’s Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to the Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion on Appeal, 1 September 2003, confidential (“Sur-Reply”).
1743 - Appellant’s Supplemental Redacted Sur-Reply to Prosecution’s Reply to Appellant’s Opposition to Rebuttal Evidence and Arguments in Response to the Appellant’s Fourth Additional Evidence Motion on Appeal, 9 Feb. 2004, confidential.
1744 - Scheduling Order, 31 Oct. 2002.
1745 - Appellant’s Notice of Lodging of Book of Authorities in Accordance with the Appeals Chamber’s Scheduling Order of 31 October 2002, 15 Nov. 2002.
1746 - Prosecution’s Book of Authorities for 21 Nov. 2002 Hearing, 18 Nov. 2002.
1747 - Decision on Evidence, 31 Oct. 2003.
1748 - Scheduling Order, 31 Oct. 2002.
1749 - Decision on Evidence, 31 Oct. 2003. A separate confidential decision regarding the Third Rule 115 Motion was issued on 31 Oct. 2003.
1750 - In light of the numerous decisions and orders issued, only some representative examples will be referenced here. See, e.g., Decision on Prosecution's Application to Seek Guidance from the Appeals Chamber Regarding Redaction of the Statement of "Witness Two" for the Purposes of Disclosure to Dario Kordic Under Rule 68, 4 Mar. 2004, confidential; Decision on Joint Defence Motion of Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura for Access to Further Confidential Materials in the Appeal Proceedings of the Blaskic Case, 3 Mar. 2004; Decision on Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez's Request for Access to Tihomir Blaskic's Fourth Rule 115 Motion and Associated Documents, 28 Jan. 2004; Decision on "Prosecution's Preliminary Response and Motion for Clarification Regarding Decision on Joint Motion of Hadžihasanovic, Alagic and Kubura of 24 January 2003, 26 May 2003; Decision on Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez's Second Supplemental Request for Access to Confidential Material, 25 Feb. 2003; Decision on Joint Motion of Enver Hadzihasanovic, Mehmed Alagic and Amir Kubura for Access to All Confidential Material, Transcripts and Exhibits in the Case Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, 27 Jan. 2003; Decision on Pasko Ljubicic's Motion for Access to Confidential Material, Transcripts and Exhibits, 4 Dec. 2002; Decision on Appellant Mario Cerkez's Request for Assistance of the Appeals Chamber in Gaining Access to Protected Information, 20 Nov. 2002; Decision on Appellants Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez's Supplemental Request for Assistance in Gaining Access to Non-Public Post Trial Submissions, Appellate Briefs, and Hearing Transcripts Filed in The See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, 16 Oct. 2002; Decision on Appellants Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez's Request for Assistance of the Appeals Chamber in Gaining Access to Appellate Briefs and Non-Public Post Appeal Pleadings and Hearing Transcripts Filed in The See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, 16 May 2002; Decision on Appellant's Motion Requesting Assistance of the Appeals Chamber in Gaining Access to Non-Public Transcripts and Exhibits from the Aleksovski Case, 8 Mar. 2002; Decision on the Appellant's Motion Requesting Assistance of the Appeals Chamber in Gaining Access to Non-Public Transcripts and Exhibits, 4 July 2001.
1751 - Order for the Assignment of Judges to the Appeals Chamber, 12 Apr. 2000.
1752 - Order Appointing a Pre-Appeal Judge and Scheduling Order, 8 June 2000.
1753 - Order of the President on the Composition of the Appeals Chamber for a Case, signed 23 Nov. 2001, filed in French on 23 Nov. 2001, filed in English on 12 Dec. 2001; Corrigendum, signed on 27 Nov. 2001, filed in English on 12 Dec. 2001.
1754 - Order Assigning a Judge to a Case Before the Appeals Chamber, 18 June 2003.
1755 - Order Replacing a Judge in a Case Before the Appeals Chamber, 6 Aug. 2003.
1756 - Order Replacing a Judge in a Case Before the Appeals Chamber, 9 Sept. 2003.
1757 - Order Affirming the Pre-Appeal Judge, 3 Oct. 2003.
1758 - Scheduling Order, 31 Oct. 2003.
1759 - Scheduling Order, 18 Nov. 2003.
1760 - Scheduling Order Amending Prior Scheduling Order and Setting the Schedule for the Final Arguments, 2 Dec. 2003.
1761 - Notice of Substitution of Counsel, signed 8-9 Apr. 2004, filed 13 Apr. 2004, confidential.