1 - Amended Indictment, IT-96-21, confirmed on 21 March 1996.
2 - Prosecution v Delalic et al, IT-96-21-T, Judgment 16 Nov 1998 (“First Trial Chamber Judgment”).
3 - Prosecution v Delalic et al, IT-96-21-A, Judgment 20 Feb 2001 (“Appeals Chamber Judgment”).
4 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 711.
5 - Ibid, Disposition, par 2.
6 - Ibid, par 713. Delic has not submitted in the present appeal that the inadvertent omission of this issue from the formal Disposition in the Appeals Chamber Judgment invalidated the Second Trial Chamber’s determination of this issue. The prosecution, although referring to the omission, has not suggested that the Trial Chamber’s determination of this issue was invalid: Prosecution Consolidated Response Brief, 25 Feb 2002 (“Prosecution Respondent’s Brief”), at pars 7.5, 7.8.
7 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, Disposition, par 3.
8 - Ibid, Disposition, par 4.
9 - Order of the President Remitting the Case to a Trial Chamber, 11 Apr 2001. None of the judges of the original Trial Chamber was still a judge of the Tribunal.
10 - Decision on Motion for Clarification and Joint Motion for Extension of Time, 25 May 2001, p 2.
11 - Prosecution v Mucic et al, IT-96-21-Tbis-R117, Sentencing Judgment, 9 Oct 2001 (“Second Trial Chamber Judgment”).
12 - These counts are identified in par 2, supra.
13 - Appellant Zdravko Mucic’s Appeal Brief, 15 June 2002 (“Mucic Appellant’s Brief”), par 5; Brief of Esad Landzo on Appeal, 15 Jan 2002 (“Landzo Appellant’s Brief”), par 5.
14 - Oral hearing of appeal, 18 June 2002, Transcript pp 852-853.
15 - Landzo Appellant’s Brief, pars 7-8. The submissions made by Landzo upon this issue were adopted by Mucic and incorporated by reference as his own submissions: Mucic Appellant’s Brief, par 5.
16 - Tribunal’s Statute, Article 24.2.
17 - Rule 101(B)(ii).
18 - Mucic Appellant’s Brief, par 5; Landzo Appellant’s Brief, pars 5-15.
19 - Oral hearing of appeal, 18 June 2002, Transcript p 923.
20 - Those circumstances are briefly stated in par 3, supra.
21 - See par 15, infra.
22 - Prosecutor v Jelisic, IT-95-10-A, Decision on Request to Admit Additional Evidence, 15 Nov 2000 (“Jelisic Decision”), p 4.
23 - The Jelisic Decision, which was concerned only with the admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 115, is silent as to this issue.
24 - No distinction need be drawn between the term “revise” in Article 25 and the concept of re-sentencing.
25 - Prosecutor v Aleksovski, IT-95-14/1-A, Judgment, 24 Mar 2000 (“Aleksovski Appeal Judgment”), pars 187, 190.
26 - Prosecutor v Kupreskic et al, IT-95-16-A, Appeal Judgment, 23 Oct 2001 (“Kupreskic Appeal Judgment”), pars 463 465.
27 - Ibid, par 463. Rule 101(B) relevantly provides: “In determining the sentence, the Trial Chamber shall take into account […] such factors as […] any mitigating circumstances including substantial cooperation with the Prosecutor by the convicted person before or after conviction […].” None of the appellants has suggested that he wished to tender evidence of co-operation with the Prosecutor.
28 - Ibid, par 462.
29 - Ibid, par 70.
30 - Prosecutor v Tadic, IT-94-1-A, Judgment, 15 July 1999 (“Tadic Conviction Appeal Judgment”).
31 - Rule 85 is concerned with the presentation of evidence at the trial. In July 1998, the Rule was amended by adding: “(vi) any relevant information that may assist the Trial Chamber in determining an appropriate sentence if the accused is found guilty on one or more of the charges in the indictment.”
32 - Ibid, par 327.
33 - Order Remitting Sentencing to a Trial Chamber, 10 Sept 1999, p 3. The need for the President to designate a Trial Chamber to hear the matter arose because one of the three judges in the original Trial Chamber was no longer a judge of the Tribunal.
34 - It is significant that, albeit by agreement between the parties, the Appeals Chamber did not order a new trial on sentencing.
35 - In relation to the incident pleaded in paragraph 12 of the Second Amended Indictment, involving the killing of five men from the village of Jaskici, the Trial Chamber had convicted Tadic only of wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, cruel treatment and inhumane acts (Counts 32, 33 and 34). The Appeals Chamber concluded that the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn was that the armed group to which Tadic belonged had killed the five men from Jaskici (Counts 29, 30 and 31): Tadic Conviction Appeal Judgment, par 183. Tadic was therefore convicted upon these three additional counts.
36 - Mucic Appellant’s Brief, pars 7 et seq; Hazim Delic’s Appellate Brief Following Remand for Re-Sentencing, 15 Jan 2002 (“Delic Appellant’s Brief”), pars 40-44; Hazim Delic’s Offer of Proof to the Appeals Chamber Related to his Statement in Mitigation of Punishment, 15 Jan 2002; Landzo Appellant’s Brief, pars 26-27.
37 - Prosecutor v Tadic, IT-94-1-A-R77, Judgment on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Milan Vujin, 31 Jan 2000 (“Vujin Judgment”), par 13, following Prosecutor v Blaskic, IT-95-14-AR108bis, Judgment on Request of Republic of Croatia for Review of Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 Oct 1997 (“Blaskic Subpoena Decision”), footnote 27 (par 25); Tadic Conviction Appeal Judgment, par 322.
38 - It was no doubt this inherent power which the Appeals Chamber considered exercising in the Kupreskic Appeal Judgment, discussed in par 13, supra.
39 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, pars 402-405.
40 - Ibid, par 412.
41 - Ibid, par 427.
42 - Ibid, par 429.
43 - Second Trial Chamber Judgment, par 42.
44 - Ibid.
45 - Mucic Appellant’s Brief, pars 42-45; Delic Appellant’s Brief, par 45; Landzo Appellant’s Brief, pars 16-21.
46 - Mucic Appellant’s Brief, par 46.
47 - Ibid, par 49.
48 - Mucic Appellant’s Brief, pars 55-56; Delic Appellant’s Brief, pars 46-48, 51; Landzo Appellant’s Brief, pars 22, 24.
49 - Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, par 4.7.
50 - Ibid, par 4.9.
51 - Ibid, pars 4.15-16.
52 - Ibid, par 4.13.
53 - Ibid, par 4.12.
54 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 431.
55 - Ibid, Disposition, par 2.
56 - Ibid, par 769. See also pars 710-712.
57 - Second Trial Chamber Judgment, par 42.
58 - First Trial Chamber Judgment, par 1286.
59 - Motion Based on Defects in the Form of the Indictment, 3 July 1996, p 6.
60 - Prosecutor v Tadic, IT-94-1-PT, Decision on Defence Motion on Form of Indictment, 14 Nov 1995, par 17.
61 - The emphasis has been added; it does not appear in either the original Decision or the original Trial Chamber’s Judgment.
62 - First Trial Chamber Judgment, par 1286.
63 - Ibid, par 1251.
64 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 785.
65 - Ibid, Disposition, par 3.
66 - Ibid, Disposition, par 4. The appeal by Mucic against this determination by the new Trial Chamber is considered in the next Section of this Judgment.
67 - Second Trial Chamber Judgment, par 27.
68 - Ibid.
69 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, Disposition, par 4.
70 - Mucic Appellant’s Brief, pars 37-41.
71 - Oral hearing of appeal, 18 June 2002, Transcript p 51-52.
72 - Ibid, Transcript p 54.
73 - Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, pars 5.8-12.
74 - See par 4(iv), supra.
75 - See par 31, supra.
76 - First Trial Chamber Judgment, par 1091.
77 - Ibid, pars 1092-1111.
78 - Ibid, par 1123.
79 - Ibid, par 1285 (p 443).
80 - Ibid, pars 1142, 1145.
81 - Ibid, par 1285 (p 443).
82 - Ibid, pars 876-877, 889, 891, 893, 901-902, 907.
83 - Ibid, par 1285 (p 441).
84 - Ibid, pars 1005-1007.
85 - Ibid, par 918.
86 - Ibid, par 971.
87 - Ibid, par 995.
88 - Ibid, par 937.
89 - Ibid, par 958.
90 - Ibid, par 1285 (p 442).
91 - Ibid, pars 1025-1026, 1030-1034, 1037-1040, 1047. There is an apparent inconsistency between the findings in pars 1026 and 1047, but no point has been taken in relation to that inconsistency.
92 - Ibid, par 1285 (p 442).
93 - Ibid, pars 1053-1059.
94 - Ibid, pars 1064-1065.
95 - Ibid, par 1069.
96 - Ibid, par 1285 (p 443).
97 - Ibid, pars 1239-1240. The Appeals Chamber criticised the Trial Chamber for having failed to consider the sentence to be imposed as if two separate offences were encompassed in the one count: Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 745.
98 - Ibid, par 1286.
99 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 740.
100 - Ibid, par 741.
101 - Ibid, pars 745-746.
102 - Ibid, par 853.
103 - Ibid, par 854.
104 - Second Trial Chamber Judgment, par 26. See also Sentencing hearing, 21 Sept 2001, Transcript p 28.
105 - Second Trial Chamber Judgment, par 27. At the time the original Trial Chamber sentenced the three appellants, Rule 87(C) limited the inherent power of any court to impose a single sentence reflecting the totality of the criminal conduct of the accused, and required a Trial Chamber to impose separate sentences in relation to each finding of guilt. That restriction was removed in December 2000 (IT/32/Revision 19), and the power to impose such a single sentence is now unrestricted.
106 - Mucic Appellant’s Brief, par 28. The use of the word “ceiling” was inappropriate; the Appeals Chamber has interpreted the complaint as asserting that the Appeals Chamber had identified ten years as the minimum which could be imposed.
107 - Aleksovski Appeal Judgment, par 182; Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 731.
108 - First Trial Chamber Judgment, pars 817-818.
109 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 459.
110 - First Trial Chamber Judgment, par 1285 (p 443).
111 - Ibid, pars 832-833.
112 - Ibid, par 1285 (p 444).
113 - Ibid, pars 861-866.
114 - Ibid, par 1285 (p 444).
115 - Ibid, pars 937-941.
116 - Ibid, par 1285 (pp 444-445).
117 - Ibid, pars 958-964.
118 - Ibid, par 1285 (p 445).
119 - Paragraph 34(6), supra.
120 - First Trial Chamber Judgment, pars 1054-1058.
121 - Ibid, par 1285 (p 446).
122 - Ibid, par 1121.
123 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 510.
124 - First Trial Chamber Judgment, pars 804, 806.
125 - Ibid, pars 1097-1100.
126 - Ibid, par 1097, referring to the Trial Transcript, pp 7706-7707, and par 1098.
127 - Ibid, par 1104.
128 - Ibid, par 1109.
129 - Ibid, par 1121.
130 - Ibid, pars 1268-1269.
131 - Ibid, par 1285 (p 446).
132 - Ibid, par 1286.
133 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 825.
134 - Ibid, par 713.
135 - Hazim Delic’s Brief on Re-Sentencing, 22 June 2001, pars 58-63.
136 - Ibid.
137 - Sentencing hearing, 21 Sept 2001, Transcript pp 34-35.
138 - Second Trial Chamber Judgment, par 33.
139 - Ibid.
140 - Delic Appellant’s Brief, pars 53-55.
141 - Second Trial Chamber Judgment, par 6(i).
142 - The Appeals Chamber said: “It would be convenient, when the matter is remitted, for the new Trial Chamber also to consider what adjustments should be made to the sentence of Delic in relation to the reversal of his conviction” (par 713).
143 - Decision on Motion for Clarification and Joint Motion for Extension of Time, 25 May 2001, p 3: “1. What adjustment, if any, should be made to the sentence of Hazim Delic after the Appeals Chamber quashed his convictions on Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment”.
144 - Hazim Delic’s Brief on Re-Sentencing, 22 June 2001, par 1.
145 - Sentencing hearing, 21 Sept 2001, Transcript pp 7-8: “Three matters arise for consideration by the Trial Chamber as remitted to it by the Appeals Chamber: First, to consider what adjustments, if any, should be made to the sentence imposed on Hazim Delic as a result of the quashing of his convictions on Counts 1 and 2”.
146 - Delic Appellant’s Brief, par 59.
147 - Ibid, par 59.
148 - Ibid, pars 59-60.
149 - Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, pars 7.16-7.20, 7.24-7.28.
150 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 825.
151 - Ibid, par 429. The citations in the footnotes have been omitted, but they are instructive.
152 - Ibid, par 430.
153 - Paragraph 42, supra.
154 - Hazim Delic’s Reply to the Prosecutor’s Appellate Brief Following Remand for Re-Sentencing, 27 March 2002 (“Delic Reply Brief”), par 2.
155 - Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, pars 6.15 et seq.
156 - Delic Appellant’s Brief, par 3.
157 - Prosecution Respondent’s Brief, pars 6.16-6.22.
158 - Prosecutor v Galic, IT-98-29-AR73, Decision on Application by Prosecution for Leave to Appeal, 14 Dec 2001, par 13; Prosecutor v Milosevic, IT-01-50-AR73, Reasons for Refusal of Leave to Appeal from Decision to Impose Time Limit, 16 May 2002, par 17. See also Prosecutor v Kvocka et al, IT-98-30/1-A, Decision on Further Request for Review by Zoran Zigic, 11 Mar 2003, par 6
159 - Prosecutor v Bagosora et al, ICTR-98-41-A, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal from Refusal to Reconsider Decisions Relating to Protective Measures and Application for a Declaration of “Lack of Jurisdiction”, 2 May 2002, par 10.
160 - Blaskic Subpoena Decision, footnote 27 (par 25); Vujin Judgment, par 13; Jelisic Decision, p 3; Prosecutor v Kupreskic et al, IT-95-16-A, Decision on the Motions of Appellants Vlatko Kupreskic, Drago Josipovic, Zoran Kupreskic and Mirjan Kupreskic to Admit Additional Evidence, 26 Feb 2001, par 18 (this Decision was given on a confidential basis, but a redacted version was filed on 30 May 2001); Prosecutor v Aleksovski, IT-95-14/1-AR77, Judgment on Appeal by Anto Nobilo Against Finding of Contempt, 30 May 2001, par 30; Prosecutor v Delic, IT-96-21-R-R119, Decision on Motion for Review, 25 Apr 2002, par 18. See also par 16, supra.
161 - Tribunal’s Statute, Article 25.
162 - Prosecutor v Jelisic, IT-95-10-R, Decision on Motion for Review, 2 May 2002, p 3; Prosecutor v Tadic, IT-94-1-R, Decision on Motion for Review, 30 July 2002, par 25.
163 - See footnote 160, supra.
164 - Regina v Bow Street Stipendiary Magistrate & Ors, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [2001] 1 AC 119, 132.
165 - Paragraph 49, supra.
166 - Vujin Judgment, par 24; Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 583.
167 - See par 49, supra.
168 - Rule 46(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
169 - Delic Reply Brief, par 3.
170 - Delic Appellant’s Brief, par 2.
171 - Ibid, par 3.
172 - Kupreskic Appeal Judgment, par 30.
173 - See, for example, the Appeals Chamber Judgment in the present case, par 434.
174 - Tadic Conviction Appeal, par 64; Aleksovski Appeal Judgment, par 63; Prosecutor v Jelisic, IT-95-10-A, Judgment, 5 July 2001 (“Jelisic Appeal Judgment”), par 37; Prosecutor v Furundzija, IT-95-17/1-A, Judgment, 21 July 2000, par 37; Prosecutor v Kunarac et al, IT-96-23&23/1-A, Judgment, 12 June 2002, par 39.
175 - Kupreskic Appeal Judgment, par 225.
176 - Ibid, par 138.
177 - Delic Appellant’s Brief, par 10.
178 - Ibid, par 7.
179 - Delic Reply Brief, par 4.
180 - Transcript, 18 June 2002, pp 29-31.
181 - Prosecutor v Kunarac et al, IT-96-23-T & 96-23/1-T, Decision on Motion for Acquittal, 3 July 2000. That decision was given within a few days of the oral argument in the earlier appeal, and there was nothing to stop counsel from referring it to the Appeals Chamber if they thought that the Appeals Chamber may be in ignorance of it. In fact, two of the judges from the Trial Chamber which decided the Kunarac case were also members of the Appeals Chamber which heard the earlier appeal.
182 - Ibid, par 7.
183 - Ibid, par 8.
184 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, par 434; Jelisic Appeal Judgment, pars 36-37.
185 - Appeals Chamber Judgment, pars 433-436.
186 - See par 57, supra – the reference to “evidence […] (if accepted)”.
187 - Prosecutor v Kupreskic et al, IT-95-16-T, Judgment, 14 Jan 2000, par 425.