1. S/RES/827 (1993). 647. Delalic Closing Brief, RP D8491-D8494.
2. The Rules have been successively amended on 5 May 1994, 4 Oct.
1994, 30 Jan. 1995, 3 May 1995, 15 June 1995, 6 Oct. 1995, 18 Jan. 1996,
23 April 1996, 25 June and 5 July 1996, 3 Dec. 1996, 25 July 1997, revised
20 Oct. and 12 Nov. 1997, 9 and 10 July 1998.
3. Article 1 of the Statute.
4. Review of the Indictment, Case No. IT-96-21-I, 21 March 1996 (RP
D282-D284).
5. Counts 9 and 10, and counts 40 and 41 of the original Indictment
were withdrawn on 21 April 1997 (RP D3254-D3255) and 19 Jan. 1998 (RP D5385-D5386)
respectively.
6. After the Dayton Peace Agreement in 1995, the Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina became Bosnia and Herzegovina. While the events which concern
this Judgement took place prior to 1995, we shall use the designation Bosnia
and Herzegovina when referring to the State which was recognised as independent
on 6 April 1992.
7. The allegations of rape being charged as torture or cruel treatment.
8. For pre-trial submissions, see Defendant Delic’s Pre-Trial
Memorandum, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 21 Feb. 1997 (RP D2789-D2817) (hereafter
"Delic Pre-Trial Brief"); The Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief,
Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 24 Feb. 1997 (RP D2823-D2850) (hereafter "Prosecutor’s
Pre-Trial Brief); Pre-Trial Brief of Zejnil Delalic, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 3 March
1997 (RP D2939-D2944) (hereafter "Delalic Pre-Trial Brief"); Pre-Trial
Brief of the Accused Zdravko Mucic, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 3 March 1997 (RP D2939-D2944)
(hereafter "Mucic Pre-Trial Brief"); Pre-Trial Brief of Esad Landzo
and Response to Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 3 March
1997 (RP D2898-D2912) (hereafter "Landzo Pre-Trial Brief"). For
final submissions, see: Closing Statement of the Prosecution, Case No.
IT-96-21-T, 25 Aug. 1998 (RP D7610-D8082) (hereafter "Prosecution Closing
Brief"); Defendant Hazim Delic’s Final Written Submissions on the Issue
of Guilt/Innocence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 28 Aug. 1998 (RP D8180-D8364) (hereafter
"Delic Closing Brief"); The Final Written Submissions of Delalic, Case
No. IT-96-21-T, 28 Aug. 1998 (RP D8366-D8717) (hereafter "Delalic Closing
Brief"); Defendant Zdravko Mucic’s Final Submissions, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
28 Aug. 1998 (RP D8093-8178) (hereafter "Mucic Closing Brief"); Esad
Landzo’s Amended Final Submissions & Motion for Acquittal, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
31 Aug. 1998, (RP D9022-D9204) (hereafter "Landzo Closing Brief").
9. As noted below, the composition of the Trial Chamber altered on
15 October 1996. Thus, in the following discussion, the term "Trial Chamber"
is utilised both to refer to the original composition, prior to this date,
and also to the later composition, after this date.
10. The Rules referred to in this entire discussion are those that
were in force at the time of the relevant motion or decision, in accordance with
sub-Rule 6(c).
11. Motion Based on Defects in the Form of the Indictment (Zejnil
Delalic), Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 9 July 1996 (RP D731-D738); Preliminary Motions
of Accused Hazim Delic Based on Defects in the Form of the Indictment, Case
No. IT-96-21-PT, 1 Aug. 1996 (RP D885-D891); Objections Based on Defects in the
Form of the Indictment (Esad Landzo), Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 16 July 1996 (RP D743-D747).
12. Preliminary Motion by the Accused (Zdravko Mucic), Case No. IT-96-21-PT,
25 April 1996 (RP D327-D332).
13. Decision on Motion by the Accused Zejnil Delalic Based on Defects
in the Form of the Indictment, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 4 Oct. 1996 (RP D1576-D1590);
Decision on Motion by the Accused Hazim Delic Based on Defects in the Form
of the Indictment, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 15 Nov. 1996 (RP D1810–D1819); Decision
on Motion By the Accused Esad Landzo Based on Defects in the Form of the Indictment,
Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 15 Nov. 1996 (RP D1803-D1809); Decision on the Accused Mucic’s
Motion for Particulars, Case No IT-96-21-PT, 8 July 1996 (RP D693-D701).
14. Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal by Hazim Delic (Defects
in the Form of the Indictment), Case No. IT-96-21-AR72.5, 6 Dec. 1996 (RP D22-D34);
Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal (Form of Indictment), Case No.
IT-96-21-AR72.3, 16 Oct. 1996 (RP D22-D26).
15. Motion to Withdraw Counts 9 and 10 of the Indictment, Case No.
IT-96-21-T, 14 April 1997 (RP D3254-D3255).
16. Order on Prosecution’s Motion to Withdraw Counts 9 and 10
of the Indictment, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 21 April 1997 (RP D3376-D3377).
17. Prosecution’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 40 and 41, Case No.
IT-96-21-T, 20 Nov. 1997 (RP D5320-D5321).
18. Order on Prosecution Motion to Dismiss Counts 40 and 41, Case
No. IT-96-21-T, 16 Jan. 1998 (RP D5385-D5386).
19. Motion for Provisional Release (Zejnil Delalic), Case No. IT-96-21-PT,
5 June 1996 (RP D1-5/410 bis); Motion for Provisional Release (Esad Landzo),
Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 16 July 1996 (RP D749-D752); Motion for Provisional
Release (Hazim Delic) Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 20 Aug. 1996 (RP D1111-D1113).
20. Decision on Motion for Provisional Release Filed by the Accused
Zejnil Delalic, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 1 Oct. 1996 (RP D1504-D1523); Decision on
Motion for Provisional Release Filed by the Accused Hazim Delic, Case No.
IT-96-21-PT, 28 Oct. 1996 (RP D1676-D1689).
21. Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal (Provisional Release),
Case No. IT-96-21-AR72.2, 15 Oct. 1996 (RP D31-D37); Decision on Application
for Leave to Appeal (Provisional Release) by Hazim Delic, Case No. IT-96-21-AR72.4,
22 Nov. 1996 (RP D25-D34).
22. Decision on Motion for Provisional Release Filed by the Accused
Esad Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 16 Jan. 1997 (RP D2325-D2556).
23. Request for a Formal Finding of the Trial Chamber that the Accused
Esad Landzo is Fit to Stand Trial, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 17 April 1997 (RP D3307-D3309).
24. Order on the Prosecution’s Request for a Formal Finding
of the Trial Chamber that the Accused Esad Landzo is Fit to Stand Trial, Case
No. IT-96-21-T, 23 June 1997 (RP D3879-D3880).
25. United Nations Detention Unit Regulations to Govern the Supervision
of Visits to and Communications with Detainees (IT/98/REV.2).
26. Prosecution’s Motion for Production of Notes Exchanged Between
Detainees Delalic and Mucic, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 26 Aug. 1996 (RP D1115-D1130).
27. Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion for the Production of
Notes Exchanged Between Zejnil Delalic and Zdravko Mucic, Case No. IT-96-21-PT,
1 Nov. 1996 (RP D1739-D1750).
28. Decision of the President on the Prosecutor’s Motion for
the Production of Notes Exchanged Between Zejnil Delalic and Zdravko Mucic, Case
No. IT-96-21-PT, 11 Nov. 1996 (RP D1779-D1797), para. 37.
29. Decision of the Registrar, 20 Dec. 1996 (RP D2325).
30. Order on the Request by the Accused Esad Landzo for Withdrawal
of Lead Counsel, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 21 April 1997 (RP D3373-D3375).
31. Order on Request for Revocation of Power of Attorney, Case No.
IT-96-21-T, 25 April 1997 (RP D3444-D3446).
32. Decision of the Registrar, 26 May 1997 (RP D3727-D3728).
33. Decision of the Registrar, 21 Jan. 1998 (RP D5392-D5393).
34. Decision of the Registrar, 2 July 1996 (RP D651).
35. Decision of the Registrar, 10 July 1996 (RP D740).
36. Decision of the Registrar, 11 Dec. 1996 (RP D2294).
37. See Order on the Request by Defence Counsel for Zdravko
Mucic for Assignment of a New Co-Counsel, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 17 March 1997 (RP
D3114-D3116) and Decision of the Registrar, 17 March 1997 (RP D3118).
38. Order on Request for Withdrawal of Counsel, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
5 May 1997 (RP D3552-D3554).
39. Decision of the Registrar, 24 April 1998 (RP D6104).
40. Decision of the Registrar, 27 July 1998 (RP D7358).
41. Decision of the Vice-President, 6 Aug. 1998 (RP D7556-D7557).
42. Decision of the Registrar, 4 Sept. 1998 (RP D9514).
43. Decision of the Registrar, 4 Oct. 1996 (RP D1574).
44. Decision of the Registrar, 11 Dec. 1996 (RP D2293).
45. Decision of the Registrar, 13 Jan. 1997 (RP D2361).
46. Order of the President Assigning Judges of the Tribunal to Trial
Chamber, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 15 Oct. 1996 (RP D1658-D1659).
47. Order on the Preliminary Motion for Compliance with Article 20
of the Statute on the Behalf of Zdravko Mucic, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 21 Oct. 1996
(RP D1673-D1674).
48. Decision on the Applications for Adjournment of the Trial Date,
Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 3 Feb. 1997 (RP D2682-D2691).
49. Preliminary Motion by the Accused, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 24 May
1996 (RP D385-D387).
50. Motion for a Separate Trial, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 5 June 1996
(RP D1-8/418 bis).
51. Order to Respond to Motions for Separate Trial, Case No. IT-96-21-PT,
18 June 1996 (RP D535-D536).
52. Response to the Requests of the Defence of the Accused, Delalic
and Mucic, Seeking a Separate Trial and to the Prosecutor’s Response to the
Motions of the Defence, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 10 July 1996 (RP D754-D760);
Response of Accused Hazim Delic to the Motions by the Accused Mucic and Delalic
and Prosecutor Response Thereto, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 10 July 1996 (RP D764-D767).
53. Prosecution Response to Delalic’s Motion for a Separate
Trial, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 28 June 1996 (RP D574-D579).
54. Decision on Motion for Separate Trial Filed by the Accused Zejnil
Delalic and the Accused Zdravko Mucic, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 26 Sept. 1996 (RP
D1407-D1415).
55. Decision on the Application for Leave to Appeal (Separate Trials),
Case No. IT-96-21-AR72.1, 14 Oct. 1996 (RP D20–D29).
56. Application for Forwarding the Documents in the Language of the
Accused, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 15 May 1996 (RP D1-2/368 bis).
57. Decision on Defence Application for Forwarding the Documents
in the Language of the Accused, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 27 Sept. 1996 (RP D1472-D1480).
58. Order on the Motion for Application of Redress of the Accused’s
Right of Information Pursuant to Articles 20 and 21 of the Statute of the International
Tribunal, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 19 Jan. 1998 (RP D5290-D5388).
59. Order on the Prosecutor’s Motion for Delayed Release of
Transcripts and Video and Audio Tapes of Proceedings, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 1
Oct. 1996 (RP D1545-D1547).
60. Request Regarding the Order in Which Counsel for the Defendants
May Cross-Examine Prosecution Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 13 March 1997 (RP
D3026-D3034).
61. See transcript of trial proceedings, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
14 March 1997.
62. Prosecutor’s Motion for Order Requiring Advance Disclosure
of Witnesses by the Defence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 10 Dec. 1997 (RP D5364-D5368).
63. Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for an Order Requiring
Advance Disclosure of Witnesses by the Defence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 9 Feb. 1998
(RP D5469-D5487).
64. Application of Defendant Zejnil Delalic for Leave to Appeal the
Oral Decision of the Trial Chamber of 12 January 1998 Pursuant to Rule 73, Case
No. IT-96-21-T, 28 Jan. 1998 (RP D5457-D5467).
65. Decision on Application of Defendant Zejnil Delalic for Leave
to Appeal the Oral Decision of the Trial Chamber of 12 January 1998 Pursuant to
Rule 73, Case No. IT-96-21-AR 73.3 (RP A20-A28), filed 4 March 1998.
66. Prosecutor’s Motion on the Order of Appearance of Defence
Witnesses and the Order of Cross-Examination by the Prosecution and Counsel for
Co-accused, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 18 March 1998 (RP D5929-D5935) (motion granted
in part by Trial Chamber’s Order on the Prosecutor’s Motion on the Order
of Appearance of Defence Witnesses and the Order of Cross-Examination by the Prosecution
and Counsel for the Co-Accused, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 3 April 1998 (RP D6041-D6044)).
67. Motion by the Defendant Delalic Requesting Procedures for Final
Determination of Evidence Immediately After the Close of Delalic Defence, Case
No. IT-96-21-T, 2 June 1998 (RP D6407-D6413).
68. Decision on the Motion by Defendant Zejnil Delalic Requesting
Procedures for Final Determination of the Charges Against Him, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
2 July 1998 (RP D6842-D6861), D6843.
69. Order for the Non-Disclosure to the Public or Media or Names
of Potential Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 29 Nov. 1996 (RP D2004-D2005).
70. Decision on the Motions by the Prosecution for Protective Measures
for the Prosecution Witnesses Pseudonymed "B" through to "M",
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 28 April 1997 (RP D3457-D3483).
71. Confidential Motion for Protective Measures for Witness "N",
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 25 March 1997 (RP D3163-D3166) (motion granted in Trial Chamber’s
Decision on the Motion by the Prosecution for Protective Measures for the
Witness Designated by the Pseudonym "N", Case No. IT-96-21-T, 28 April
1997 (RP D3448-D3456)); Confidential Motion for Protective Measures for Witness
"O", Case No. IT-96-21-T, 13 May 1997 (RP D3625-D3628) (motion granted
by Trial Chamber’s Order on the Motion by the Prosecution for Protective
Measures for the Witness Designated by the Pseudonym "O", Case No. IT-96-21-T,
3 June 1997 (RP D3817-D3820)); Confidential Motion for Protective Measures for
Witness "P", Case No. IT-96-21-T, 7 July 1997 (RP D3931-D3940) (motion
granted by Trial Chamber’s Order on the Motion by the Prosecution for Protective
Measures for the Witness Designated by the Pseudonym "P", 18 July
1997 (RP D4028-D4031); Confidential Motion for Protective Measures for Witness
Risto Vukalo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 12 Aug. 1997 (RP D4137-D4139) (motion granted
by Trial Chamber’s Order on the Motion for Protective Measures for Witness
Risto Vukalo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 25 Sept. 1997 (RP D5184-D5187)); Confidential
Motion for Protective Measures for Witness "T", Case No. IT-96-21-T,
2 Sept. 1997 (RP D5050-D5053) (motion granted by Trial Chamber’s Order on
the Motion for Protective Measures for Witness "T", Case No. IT-96-21-T,
23 Sept. 1997 (RP D5151-D5153)); Motion for Protective Measures for Witness "R",
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 22 July 1997 (RP D4036-D4039) (motion granted by Trial Chamber’s
Order on the Prosecution’s Motion for Protective Measures for Witness "R",
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 2 Oct. 1997 (RP D5216-D5219)); Prosecutor’s Request
for Additional Measures in Respect of the Protection of Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
4 July 1997 (RP D3964-D3967) (motion denied by the Trial Chamber’s Decision
on the Prosecution Motion for Additional Measures of Protection for Witnesses,
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 8 Oct. 1998 (RP D5227-D5228)).
72. See e.g. Order on the Motion for Protective Measures for
the Witness Designated by the Pseudonym DB.1, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 29 May 1998
(RP D6379-D6382) (granting the motion); Order on the Motion for Protective
Measures for the Witness Designated by the Pseudonym DA.1, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
29 May 1998 (RP D6383-D6386) (granting the motion); Order on the Motions for Protective
Measures for the Witnesses Designated DA.4 and DB.4, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 29 June
1998 (RP D6807-D6810) (granting the motion); Motion for Safe Conduct for Defence
Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 12 June 1998 (RP D6626-D6631); Order Granting
Safe Conduct to Defence Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 25 June 1998 (RP (D6729-D6732)
(granting the motion); Decision on Confidential Motion for Protective Measures
for Defence Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 25 Sept. 1997, (RP D5155-D5161) (granting
the motion); Order on the Motions for Protective Measures for the Witnesses Designated
by the Pseudonyms: DA.2, DB.2, DC.2, DD.2, DE.2, DF.2, DG.2 and DI.2, Case No.
IT-96-21-T, 11 June 1998 (RP D6588-D6591) (granting the motion).
73. During oral argument on the motion, the Prosecution withdrew
its request in respect of Witness "M’, on the basis that he was no longer
unable to testify.
74. Decision on the Motion to Allow Witnesses K, L and M to Give
Their Testimony By Means of Video-Link Conference, IT-96-21-T, 28 May 1997 (RP
D3751-D3762).
75. Order on the Motion to Allow Certain Witnesses to Give Their
Testimony by Means of Video-Link Conference, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 11 Nov. 1997
(RP D5317-D5318).
76. Defence Motion to Compel the Discovery of Identity and Location
of Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 19 Feb. 1997 (RP D2757-D2761).
77. Decision on the Defence Motion to Compel the Discovery of Identity
and Location of Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 18 March 1997 (RP D3122-D3130).
78. Decision on the Motion to Compel the Disclosure of the Addresses
of the Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 13 June 1997 (RP D3857-D3864), D3856.
79. Order on the Motion by the Prosecution for Leave to Call Additional
Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 1 Aug. 1997 (RP D4121-D4123); Decision on Confidential
Motion to Seek Leave to Call Additional Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 9
Sept. 1997 (RP D5111-D5116); Order on the Prosecution’s Motion for Leave
to Call Witness "R" as a Witness, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 1 Oct. 1997 (RP
D5213-D5215).
80. Opinion and Judgment, Case No. IT-94-1-T, 7 May 1997 (RP D17338-D17687);
Order on the Prosecution’s Motion for Leave to Call Additional Expert Witnesses,
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 13 Nov. 1997 (RP D5314-D5316).
81. See sub-section 8 below.
82. Request by the Prosecutor for the Issuance of Subpoenas Ad
Testificandum and an Order to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case
No. IT-96-21-T, 14 Oct. 1997 (RP D5258-D5263).
83. Order on the Prosecution’s Request for the Issuance of Subpoena
Ad Testificandum and for an Order to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 16 Oct. 1997 (RP D5282-D5284).
84. Request to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case No.
IT-96-21-T, 16 Oct. 1997 (RP D5279-D5281).
85. Order on the Prosecution’s Oral Request for the Release
of Esad Ramic from the Subpoena ad Testificandum Issued by the Trial Chamber,
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 23 Oct. 1997 (RP D5298-D5299).
86. See Order on the Motion of the Defence Hazim Delic for
the Issuance of Subpoenas, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 26 June 1998 (RP D6744-D6746).
87. See Order on the Second Motion for the Issuance of Subpoena,
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 1 July 1998 (RP D6824-D6826) and accompanying subpoenas;
see also Request to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case
No. IT-96-21-T, 1 July 1998 (RP D6828-D6829).
88. See Order on the Request by Esad Landzo for the Issuance
of Subpoenas, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 6 July 1998 (RP D6952-D6954) and
accompanying subpoenas; see also Confidential Request to the
Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 6 July 1998 (RP D6957-D6959).
89. See Alternative Request for Renewed Consideration of Delalic’s
Motion for an Adjournment until 22 June 1998 or Request for Issue of Subpoenas
to Individuals and Requests for Assistance to the Government of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 8 June 1998 (RP D6557-D6561).
90. Decision on the Alternative Request for Renewed Consideration
of Delalic’s Motion for an Adjournment until 22 June 1992 or Request
for Issue of Subpoenas to Individuals and Requests for Assistance to the Government
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 23 June 1998 (RP D6700-D6719).
91. Decision on the Application for Leave to Appeal Pursuant to Rule
73 by the Accused Zejnil Delalic, Case No. IT-96-21-AR73.4, 15 June 1998 (RP A15-A18).
92. Motion to Allow the Investigators to Follow the Trial during
the Testimonies of the Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 10 March 1997 (RP D3003-D3005).
93. Decision on the Motion by the Prosecution to Allow the Investigators
to Follow the Trial During the Testimonies of the Witnesses, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
20 March 1997 (RP D3135-3142), D3136 and D3137.
94. Ibid., RP D3135.
95. Decision on the Motion Ex Parte by the Defence of Zdravko
Mucic Concerning the Issue of a Subpoena to an Interpreter, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
8 July 1997 (RP D3949-D3958).
96. Motion for the Disclosure of Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-PT,
10 June 1996 (RP D446-D447).
97. Decision on the Motion by the Accused Zejnil Delalic for the
Disclosure of Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 27 Sept. 1996 (RP D1444-D1452).
99. Decision on the Motion by the Defendants on the Production of
Evidence by the Prosecution, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 10 Sept. 1997 (RP D5133-D5139).
100. Request Pursuant to Rule 68 for Exculpatory Information, Case
No. IT-96-21-T, 21 April 1997 (RP D3385-D3392).
101. Decision on the Request of the Accused Hazim Delic Pursuant
to Rule 68 for Exculpatory Information, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 24 June 1997 (RP
D3891-D3899).
102. Motion to Specify the Documents Disclosed by the Prosecutor
that Delalic’s Defence Intends to Use as Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 13
May 1997 (RP D3641-D3646).
103. Decision on the Motion to Specify the Documents Disclosed by
the Prosecutor that Delalic’s Defence Intends to Use as Evidence, Case No.
IT-96-21-T, 10 Sept. 1997 (RP D5127-D5132).
104. Motion to Exclude Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 8 May 1997
(RP D3587-D3595).
105. Decision on Zdravko Mucic’s Motion for the Exclusion of
Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 2 Sept. 1997 (RP D5082-D5105).
106. Ibid., para. 51.
107. Ibid.
108. Motion for Exclusion of Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 5 June
1996 (RP D1/403 bis–4/403 bis)
109. The "Munich Statements" are transcripts of interviews
held between Zejnil Delalic and Prosecution investigators at the Office of the
Bavarian Police in Munich, Germany on 18 and19 March 1996.
110. Decision on the Motion on the Exclusion and Restitution of
Evidence and Other Material Seized From the Accused Zejnil Delalic, Case No. IT-96-21-PT,
10 Oct. 1996 (RP D1612-D1621).
111. This refers to interviews held between Zejnil Delalic and Prosecution
investigators at the Detention Unit in The Hague from 22–23 Aug. 1996, and
various addenda made on 22 July and 10 Aug. 1996 to the Munich Statements.
112. See generally Decision on the Motions for the Exclusion
of Evidence by the Accused, Zejnil Delalic, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 25 Sept. 1997
(RP D5162-D5180).
113. Raised on 31 Oct. 1997.
114. Decision on the Motion of the Prosecution for the Admissibility
of Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 21 Jan. 1998 (RP D5423-D5440).
115. Application of Defendant Zejnil Delalic for Leave to Appeal
the Decision on the Motion of the Prosecution for the Admissibility of Evidence
of 19 January 1998 Pursuant to Rule 73, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 28 Jan. 1998
(RP D5442-D5455).
116. Decision on Application of Defendant Zejnil Delalic for Leave
to Appeal Against the Decision of the Trial Chamber of 19 January 1998 on the
Motion of the Prosecution for the Admissibility of Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-AR
73.2, 5 March 1998 (RP A25-A36).
117. Decision on the Tendering of Prosecution Exhibits 104-108,
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 10 Feb. 1998 (RP D5489-D5497).
118. Prosecution Brief Concerning the Standard for Admission of
Evidence at Trial and the Production of Handwriting Samples, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
16 July 1997 (RP D4010-D4021); Reply to the Prosecution’s Oral Motion
of 8th July 1997, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 29 July 1997 (RP D4055-D4112).
119. Decision on the Prosecution’s Oral Requests for the Admission
of Exhibit 155 into Evidence and for an Order to Compel the Accused, Zdravko Mucic,
to Provide a Handwriting Sample, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 21 Jan. 1998 (RP D5395-D5419).
120. Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File Motions Pursuant
to Sub-Rule 73(A)(iii) and Relief from Waiver Provided in Sub-Rule 73(C), Case
No. IT-96-21-T, 7 May 1997 (RP D3575-D3577).
121. Decision on Motion by Esad Landzo Pursuant to Rule 73, Case
No. IT-96-21-T, 1 Sept. 1997 (RP D5067-D5074).
122. Decision on Hazim Delic’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 73,
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 10 Sept. 1997 (RP D5118-D5126).
123. Decision on Zdravko Mucic’s Motion for Leave to File an
Out-of-Time Application Pursuant to Rule 73, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 3 Sept. 1997
(RP D5075-D5081), D5077.
124. Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion for the Redaction
of the Public Record, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 5 June 1997 (RP D3826-D3845).
125. Ibid., RP D3834.
126. Order Disposing of Motions Filed by the Defence, Case No. IT-96-21-PT,
27 Jan. 1997 (RP D2676-D2678).
127. Other motions included a Defence Motion for Equal Access to
Prosecution Witnesses for Interview, a Defence Motion for Disclosure of Exculpatory
Material, a Defence Motion for Designation of Evidence and a Defence Motion
for Discovery and Inspection of Evidence. With respect to these motions, the Trial
Chamber urged the parties to attempt to resolve the matters at issue among themselves,
noting that "if such matters cannot be so resolved, any party may raise them
with the Trial Chamber during the trial proceedings", RP D2676.
128. Motion for Decision on Presentation of Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
24 March 1997 (RP D3151-D3155).
129. Decision on the Motion on Presentation of Evidence by the Accused,
Esad Landzo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 1 May 1997 (RP D3491-D3504), D3492.
130. Referral of Complaint, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 16 May 1997 (RP
D3678-D3679).
131. Report of the President in the Matter of the Referral of Complaint,
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 27 May 1997 (RP D3733-D3736).
132. Order on Complaint Brought by Prosecution, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
2 June 1997 (RP D3802-D3806).
133. Motion for Warning Pursuant to Rule 46(A) and to Inform Professional
Body Pursuant to Rule 46(B) and for Disclosure of Document, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
2 Sept. 1997 (RP D5055-D5065).
134. Order Disposing of Defence Motion Pursuant to Rule 46 and for
Disclosure of Document, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 8 October 1997 (RP D5224-D5226).
135. Order, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 18 May 1998 (RP D6149-D6151).
136. Order, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 10 June 1998 (RP D6584-6586).
137. Sub-Rule 46(A) of the Rules provides that "A Chamber may,
after a warning, refuse audience to counsel if, in its opinion, the conduct of
that counsel is offensive, abusive, or otherwise obstructs the proper conduct
of the proceedings".
138. Order, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 16 June 1998 (RP D6633-6635).
139. Joint Request by the Defendants Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo
Regarding Presentation of Evidence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 25 May 1998 (RP D6192-D6199).
140. Decision on the Motion of the Joint Request of the Accused
Persons Regarding the Presentation of Evidence, Dated May 24 1998, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
12 June 1998 (RP D6593-D6610).
141. Prosecution’s Notification of Witnesses Anticipated to
Testify in Rebuttal, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 22 July 1998 (RP D7322-D7328).
142. Order on the Prosecution’s Notification of Witnesses Anticipated
to Testify in Rebuttal, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 30 July 1998 (RP D7497-D7499).
143. Prosecution’s Alternative Request to Reopen the Prosecution’s
Case, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 30 July 1998 (RP D7364-D7381).
144. Decision on the Prosecution’s Alternative Request to Reopen
the Prosecution’s Case, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 19 Aug. 1998 (RP D7574-D7591).
145. Decision on Prosecutor’s Applications for Leave to Appeal
the Order of 30 July 1998 and Decision of 4 August 1998 of Trial Chamber II quater,
Case No. IT-96-21-AR73.6 and 73.7, 31 Aug. 1998 (RP A34-A37).
146. See Notice of the Defence to the Prosecutor Pursuant
to Rule 67(A)(ii)(b) of the Rules, (RP D2248-D2251).
147. Esad Landzo’s Submissions Regarding Diminished or Lack
of Mental Capacity, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 8 June 1998 (RP D6542-D6555).
148. Order on Esad Landzo’s Submission Regarding Diminished
or Lack of Mental Capacity, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 18 June 1998 (RP D6641-D6643),
D6642.
149. Order on Esad Landzo’s Request for Definition of Diminished
of Lack of Mental Capacity, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 15 July 1998 (RP D7229-D7230).
150. Motion that Accused State Whether They Will Waive Any Objection
to the Trial Chamber Sitting After 17 November 1997, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
28 May 1997 (RP D3738-D3740).
151. Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion that the Accused
State Whether They Will Waive Any Objection to the Trial Chamber Sitting After
November 17, 1997, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 23 June 1997 (RP D3882-D3887).
152. Security Council Resolution No. 1126 (1997), 27 Aug. 1997.
153. Motion on Judicial Independence, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 4 June
1998 (RP D6415-D6525).
154. Decision of the Bureau on Motion on Judicial Independence,
Case No. IT-96-21-T, 4 Sept. 1998 (RP D9516-D9528).
155. Defendants’ Motion for Judgement of Acquittal or in the
alternative Motion to Dismiss the Indictment at the Close of the Prosecutor’s
Case, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 20 Feb. 1998 (RP D5503-D5724).
156. Defendant’s Motion for Judgement of Acquittal or in the
alternative Motion to Dismiss the Indictment at the Close of the Prosecutor’s
Case or in the alternative Motion for the Provisional Release from the Custody
of the ICTY Tribunal Effective Immediately, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 20 Feb. 1998
(RP D5726-D5757).
157. Prosecution’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for
Judgement of Acquittal or in the alternative Motion to Dismiss the Indictment
at the Close of the Prosecutor’s Case, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 6 March 1998
(RP D5759-D5861) (hereafter "Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss").
158. Order on the Motions to Dismiss the Indictment at the Close
of the Prosecution’s Case, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 18 March 1998 (RP D5924-D5927).
159. Sub-Rule 87(C) provides: "If the Trial Chamber finds the
accused guilty on one or more of the charges contained in the indictment, it shall
at the same time determine the penalty to be imposed in respect to
each finding of guilt."
160. Scheduling Order, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 10 Sept. 1998 (RP D9643-D9646).
161. Sub-Rule 6(C) of the Rules.
162. Sentencing Submissions of the Prosecution, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
1 Oct. 1998 (RP D9660-D9787).
163. Sentencing Submissions by the Accused Zejnil Delalic, Case
No. IT-96-21-T, 5 Oct. 1998 (RP D9889-D10003); Esad Landzo’s Submissions
on Proposed Sentencing, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 5 Oct. 1998 (RP D9827-D9887);
Sentencing Submission on Behalf of Zdravko Mucic a/k/a Pavo, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
5 Oct. 1998 (RP D9789-D9825); Defendant Hazim Delic’s Memorandum of Law on
Sentencing and Sentencing Memorandum, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 9 Oct. 1998 (RP
D10024-D10059) (Confidential).
164. S/1994/674 (hereafter "Commission of Experts Report").
165. Commission of Experts Report, annex III, p. 10.
166. See Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, promulgated
22 Dec. 1990.
167. See EC Declaration on Yugoslavia, 3 Sept. 1991, EPC
Press Release P. 84/91 and Declaration on the Occasion of the Ceremonial Opening
of the Conference on Yugoslavia, 7 Sept. 1991, EPC Press Release P. 86/91.
The Arbitration Commission is often referred to as the "Badinter Commission",
after its Chairman, Robert Badinter.
168. This was later renamed the Republika Srpska.
169. Exhibit 19. See also, Exhibits 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and
18.
170. Opinion No. 6 on the Recognition of the Socialist Republic
of Macedonia by the European Community and its Member States, 11 January 1992,
reprinted in I.L.M. vol. 31 (1992) 1507 and Opinion No. 7 on International
Recognition of the Republic of Slovenia by the European Community and its Member
States, 11 Jan. 1992, reprinted in I.L.M. vol. 31 (1992) 1512.
171. Opinion No. 5 on the Recognition of the Republic of Croatia
by the European Community and its Member States, 11 Jan. 1992, reprinted
in I.L.M. vol. 31 (1992) 1503. In spite of this, the European Community went
ahead with the recognition of Croatia as well as Slovenia, but did not recognise
the independence of Macedonia at that time.
172. Opinion No. 4 on International Recognition of the Socialist
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the European Community and its Member States,
11 Jan. 1992, I.L.M. vol. 31 (1992) 1501.
173. EC Declaration on Recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 6
April 1992, UN Doc. S/23793, Annex. President Bush’s Statement on the Recognition
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia, 7 April 1992, reprinted in
Review of International Affairs, Vol. XVIII (1.V 1992) p.26.
174. General Framework Agreement on Peace for Bosnia and Herzegovina,
concluded in Dayton, Ohio, Nov. 1995.
175. Exhibit 29.
176. Exhibit 30.
177. Transcript of trial proceedings, p. 8065 (T. 8065). All transcript
page numbers (hereafter "T.") referred to in the course of this Judgement
are from the unofficial, uncorrected version of the English transcript. Small
differences may therefore exist between this pagination and that of the final
English transcript released to the public.
178. See Exhibit D143-1a/1, p. 8.
179. Ibid., p. 9.
180. T. 10465-T. 10466.
181. See Exhibit D135-1a/1 (hereafter "Hadzibegovic
Report") and Vejzagic Report, p. 10.
182. UN Doc. S/23812, Annex.
183. UN Doc. S/23802.
184. The FRY came into existence on 27 April 1992 with the passing
of a new Constitution.
185. Commission of Experts Report, annex III, p. 22.
186. See Commission of Experts Report, annex IIIA.
187. See Exhibit 46 for diagram of the Organisation of the
Municipality.
188. Exhibit 44.
189. Exhibit 54, Article 40. It is unclear when exactly this new
law was put into effect in each of the municipalities.
190. Decision on the Proclamation of an Immediate Threat of War,
8 April 1992, Exhibit 29.
191. Decision on Verification of the proclaimed Serbian Autonomous
Districts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 21 Nov. 1991.
192. T. 9855, Dr. Gow.
193. T. 10208.
194. See Decision on the Founding of the Croatian Community
of Herceg-Bosna, 3 July 1992, (Exhibit 24) which amends the original decision
to found the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna of 18 Nov. 1991.
195. See Exhibit 64, UNHCR report on Konjic municipality,
Sept.-Oct. 1996.
196. T. 11754.
197. T. 12051-T. 12052. See also T. 10484, Vejzagic.
198. T. 10664, Senad Begtasovic.
199. It appears that the first relevant commander of the Konjic
TO was Enver Redzepovic (who had been preceded by Smajo Prevljak), who was subsequently
replaced by Esad Ramic. Mr. Ramic was then replaced as TO commander by Omer
Boric, although he may have once again acted as commander for a short time after
Mr. Boric. He was then succeeded by Mirsad Catic and then Enver Tahirovic.
200. See Vejzagic Report, pp. 24 and 27.
201. T. 11540-T. 11541, Midhat Cerovac.
202. T. 12262.
203. T. 11343-T. 11344.
204. T. 12255-T. 12256.
205. Exhibit 162, report written between 20 and 30 June 1992. See
also T. 5161-5437, Witness D.
206. See Johnston v. Ireland 9 EHRR 329, 1967.
207. See Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Maunsell v. Olins
[1975] AC 373, 391.
208. (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7a.
209. The Hanover Case, [1957] AC 436, 461.
210. See Wemhoff Case, 1 EHRR 55, 1979-80.
211. In Magor & St. Mellons RDC v. Newport Corporation
[1952] AC 189, 191, Viscount Simonds, speaking in the House of Lords disapproved
of the judicial function of filling in the gaps of an enactment. He described
it as a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of
interpretation. In his view, "[i]f a gap is disclosed the remedy lies in
an amending Act".
212. The other view, similarly rejected, was expressed by Lord Denning
who thought that it was the function of the court to fill gaps in the statute
and make sense out of the legislation.
213. See London Transport Executive v. Betts [1959] AC 213, 247.
214. See Landzo Closing Brief; Delic Closing Brief; Delalic
Closing Brief.
215. Ibid., para. 80.
216. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5707; Landzo Closing Brief, RP D9064;
Delic Closing Brief, RP D8329; Delalic Closing Brief, RP D8682.
217. Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic, IT-96-22-T, Sentencing
Judgement of 29 Nov. 1996 (RP D1-58/472 bis), para. 83 (footnote omitted).
218. See Rules 9, 10 and 11.
219. The Trial Chamber is not here concerned with the argument raised
by the Defence for Mr. Mucic and Mr. Delic that the particular acts of plunder
alleged in the Indictment do not constitute serious violations of international
humanitarian law. This matter is instead addressed below in Section IV.
220. Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on
Jurisdiction, 2 Oct. 1995, IT-94-1-AR72 (RP D6413-D6491).
221. Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 70.
222. Ibid.
223. See, e.g., T. 10993, Vejzagic.
224. See, e.g., resolution 757, 30 May 1992 and resolution
770, 13 Aug. 1992.
225. Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 70.
226. Tadic Judgment, para. 573.
227. Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of
the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (hereafter "First Geneva
Convention" or "Geneva Convention I"); Geneva Convention II
for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members
of the Armed Forces at Sea (hereafter "Second Geneva Convention" or
"Geneva Convention II"); Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment
of Prisoners of War (hereafter "Third Geneva Convention" or "Geneva
Convention III"); Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War (hereafter "Fourth Geneva Convention" or "Geneva
Convention IV"), all of 12 August 1949.
228. See T. 15710.
229. See Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction,
10 Aug. 1995 (RP D4979-D5011), para. 53.
230. In its final Judgement in the Tadic case, Trial Chamber
II did apply the reasoning of the Appeals Chamber and required the existence of
an international armed conflict for the purposes of application of Article
2.
231. Separate Opinion of Judge Abi-Saab on the Defence Motion for
Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 Oct. 1995 (RP D6397-D6403), D6398.
232. Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief, RP D2823-D2850.
233. Hereafter "ICRC".
234. Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative
to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994 reprint
edition.
235. Commentary, p.20.
236. Here referring to the Defence for Mr. Delalic, Mr. Delic and
Mr. Landzo as the Defence for Mr. Mucic, as noted above at para. 80, filed a separate
Motion.
237. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and
against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.) (Merits) 1986 I.C.J. Reports, 14
(hereafter "Nicaragua Case").
238. Reply of Defendants Delalic, Delic and Landzo to Prosecution’s
Response to Defendants’ Motion for Judgement of Acquittal, or in the alternative,
Motion to Dismiss the Indictment at the Close of the Prosecutor’s Case,
10 March 1998 (RP D 5866-D5922) (hereafter "Reply on the Motion to Dismiss"),
RP D5909-D5910.
239. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D3017-D3019.
240. The Defence for Mr. Mucic, in its Closing Brief, joins in the
arguments of the other accused in this regard.
241. Commentary, p. 20.
242. See Commission of Experts Report, paras. 129-150.
243. Many references are made to this announcement as having occurred
on 4 May 1992. Exhibit D38/4, dated 11 May 1992, consists of the order implementing
this decision, thus actually transferring various brigades, battalions and
divisions and requiring this to be completed by 15 May 1992.
244. UN Doc. S/23906, Annex.
245. Review of International Affairs, Vol. XLIII (5.VI-5.VII 1992),
p.21.
246. Statement of the Federal Secretariat for Foreign Affairs of
Yugoslavia, 12 May 1992 (Review of International Affairs, Vol. XLIII (1.V-1.VI
1992), p.24), and Statement of the Federal Secretariat for Foreign Affairs,
13 May 1992 (Review of International Affairs, Vol. XLIII (5.VI-5.VII 1992), p.21).
247. Exhibit 207.
248. T. 10471.
249. Exhibit 37, p. 80.
250. See Letter from the Vice-President of the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia addressed to the Secretary-General, 25 May 1992, UN Doc. A/46/928
– S/24007, Annex.
251. U.N.G.A. res. 46/242 Concerning the Situation in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, 25 Aug. 1992.
252. Report of the Secretary-General, 3 Dec. 1992, A/47/747
(Exhibit 38), (hereafter "Report of the Secretary-General") para. 11.
253. Exhibit 13.
254. See Exhibits 15 and 16.
255. Exhibit 20.
256. See Exhibit 30, excerpt from the Official Gazette of
the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, 20 June 1992.
257. Ibid.
258. Vejzagic Report, p.12.
259. Res judicata pro veritae accipitur, literally "a
thing adjudicated is received as the truth".
260. Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 77.
261. See Tadic Judgment, para. 583, which states that "the
signing of such agreements does not in any way affect the legal status of the
parties to the conflict and does not in any way affect the independent determination
of the nature of that conflict by this Trial Chamber."
262. The Trial Chamber notes that this position has recently been advocated
by a prominent jurist, thus: "Obviously, the Nicaragua test addresses
only the question of state responsibility. Conceptually, it cannot determine
whether a conflict is international or internal. In practice, applying the Nicaragua
test to the question in Tadic produces artificial and incongruous conclusions."
T. Meron – Classification of Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: Nicaragua’s
Fallout, 92 A.J.I.L. (1998) 236 (hereafter "Meron"), at 237.
263.The majority in the Tadic Judgment concede that the
circumstances of the Nicaragua Case differ from that of the Tadic
case in that, in Tadic, what was important was whether the FRY had sufficiently
distanced itself from the VRS after 19 May 1992. However, "it appears that
the majority ultimately finds these differences to be of no consequence in determining
the appropriate test for a finding of agency, and applies the effective control
standard employed in Nicaragua. By failing to consider the context in which
the Nicaragua test of agency was determined, the majority erroneously imports
the requirement of effective control to an agency determination." Separate
and Dissenting Opinion of Judge McDonald, (hereafter "Dissent"), para.
19.
264.Dissent, para. 7.
265. Ibid, para. 10.
266.The Trial Chamber notes that this finding was also
made recently by the Bavarian Supreme Court in the case of the Public Prosecutor
v. Novislav Djajic, Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht, 3 St 20/96
Judgement of 23 May 1997. The Court found that the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
was international in nature, for the purposes of applying the grave breaches provisions
of the Fourth Geneva Convention, from the time of that State’s independence
and as a consequence of the involvement of the JNA. Furthermore, the Court held
that the nature of the conflict did not change as a result of the purported withdrawal
of the JNA due to the fact that Yugoslavia continued to be involved. See pp.
108-112.
267. Count 48 of the Indictment.
268. The Defence for Mr. Delalic thus joining the earlier arguments
of Mr. Delic and Mr. Landzo. The Defence for Mr. Mucic filed a separate Motion,
but stated that it adopted the arguments of the other parties on issues such
as this.
269. It is here that the Tadic Judgment has on occasion been
misquoted, for the reasoning of the majority was that the victims in that case
could not be "protected persons" on the basis of their common nationality
with those forces in whose hands they were. The implication of this finding was
that the majority also did not consider the conflict to have been international
in nature after 19 May 1992, although this was not expressly stated.
270. See Commentary, p. 47.
271. "Nationality is the principle link between individuals
and international law." Jennings and Watts (eds.) - Oppenheim’s International
Law, 9th ed. (London, 1992), vol. I (hereafter "Oppenheim"),
p 857.
272. Oppenheim, p. 852 (footnotes omitted).
273. Ibid., p. 853.
274. Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict
of Nationality Laws, The Hague, 12 April 1930, Art. 1. Reprinted in 9 Sveriges
Överenskommelser med Främmande Makter (1937) 41.
275. Commentary, p. 46.
276. Ibid.
277. Decree with Legal Power on the Citizenship of the Republic
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7 Oct. 1992, Official Gazette No. 18/92.
278. Decree with a Legal Power on Changes and Supplements to the
Decree with Legal Power on the Citizenship of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
23 April 1993, PR Nr. 1494/93.
279. 16 March 1992, Exhibit 20. The Constitution of the SRBH was
declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
on 8 Oct. 1992. See Exhibit 23.
280. Law on the Serb Citizenship, in The Official Messenger of the
Republika Srpska, No. 19, 18 Dec. 1992.
281. Exhibit D15/3, Art. 17.
282. A/52/10 Report of ILC 12 May – 18 July 1997.
283. In 1979, Professor Weis wrote, "[i]n the view of the present
writer … it cannot be concluded, from the widespread but not universal treaty
practice and from other instances of State practice, that there exists a rule
of international law imposing a duty on the States concerned in a transfer of
territory to grant to the inhabitants of the transferred territory a right of
option to decline (or acquire) the nationality of those States." P. Weis
- Nationality and Statelessness in International Law (1979), pp. 158-160.
It is not apparent to the Trial Chamber that this position has yet been altered.
284. Opinion No. 2 of the Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference
on Yugoslavia, Paris, 11 Jan. 1992, reprinted in 31 I.L.M. Vol. XXI, No. 6 (1992)
1497.
285. Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, ICJ Rep. (1955) 4.
286. Ibid., p. 23.
287. Brownlie – Principles of Public International Law
(4th ed., 1990) (hereafter "Brownlie Principles"), p. 407.
288. Brown advocates such an approach in his assertion that, "[i]nternational
law recognises nationality only when it is based on a genuine connection between
the State and the individual. Common nationality in the formal sense between
victim and defendant should not preclude individual criminal responsibility for
grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions where there is no de facto linkage to
bind them." B. Brown – Nationality and Internationality in International
Humanitarian Law, 34 Stanford Journal of International Law 2 (1998) 347 (hereafter
"Nationality and Internationality"), p. 351.
289. Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 76.
290. As has already been noted, however, the majority of the Trial
Chamber in the Tadic case did not consider it proven that the FRY had "effective
control" over the VRS, the test, in its view, required to establish the
relationship of agency.
291. Brown calls for a "functional approach" to the issue
of nationality and points out that in 1992 the outcome of the Bosnian conflict
was unknown, thus placing all Bosnians in a state of uncertainty which effectively
negated their common nationality. Nationality and Internationality, p. 397.
292. Commentary, p. 21.
293. Commentary, p. 46.
294. Meron, p. 239.
295. 1977 Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(hereafter "Additional Protocol I").
296. Commentary, p. 51.
297. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention provides: "The
present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the
time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and
repatriation. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of
the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection
of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined
by a competent tribunal."
298. Several of these counts are charged in the alternative, as
discussed in the factual and legal findings section below.
299. Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 87.
300. Ibid.
301. Ibid., para. 94.
302. With the caveat that the "serious" nature
of the offence charged as plunder remains to be discussed below.
303. Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 137.
304. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2733.
305. See Prosecutor’s Response to the Pre-Trial Briefs of the
Accused, Case No.: IT-96-21-T, 18 April 1997 (RP D3311-D3363) (hereafter "Prosecution
Response to the Pre-Trial Briefs of the Accused") (RP D3348-D3350). Article
75 of Additional Protocol I reads: "In so far as they are affected by a situation
referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party
to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the
Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances
and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without
any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief,
political or other opinion, national, or social origin, wealth, birth or other
status, or on any other similar criteria. Each party shall respect the person,
honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons. The following
acts are, and shall remain, prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever,
whether committed by civilian or by military agents: violence to the life, health,
or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular: murder; torture of
all kinds, whether physical or mental; corporal punishment and mutilation; outrages
upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced
prostitution and any form of indecent assault; the taking of hostages; collective
punishments; and threats to commit any of the foregoing acts. Any person arrested,
detained or interned for actions related to the armed conflict shall be informed
promptly, in a language he understands, of the reasons why these measures have
been taken. Except in cases of arrest or detention for penal offences, such persons
shall be released with the minimum delay possible and in any event as soon as
the circumstances justifying the arrest, detention or internment have ceased to
exist. No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found
guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction
pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally
recognised principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following:
the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the
particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before
and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence; no one shall be
convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;
no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account of any act
or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or
international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor
shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time
when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence,
provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender
shall benefit thereby; anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to law; anyone charged with an offence shall have the
right to be tried in his presence; no one shall be compelled to testify against
himself or to confess guilt; anyone charged with an offence shall have the right
to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance
and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses
against him; no one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence
in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has
been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure; anyone prosecuted
for an offence shall have the right to have the judgements pronounced publicly;
and a convicted person shall be advised on conviction of his judicial and other
remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised."
306. It is not clear that the Defence for Mr. Mucic has joined with
the other Defence in relation to this issue.
307. Report of the Secretary-General, para. 34.
308. Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 87.
309. Ibid., para. 91.
310. Ibid., para. 126.
311. See Commentary, p. 38. The Commentary continues, "The
value of the provision is not limited to the field dealt with in Article 3. Representing,
as it does, the minimum which must be applied in the least determinate of
conflicts, its terms must a fortiori be respected in the case of international
conflicts proper, when all the provisions of the Convention are applicable. For
"the greater obligation includes the lesser", as one might say."
312. See Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 98, and
subsequent discussion in paras. 100-127.
313. This is the "paradox" identified by Baxter, in "Treaties
and Custom", 129 Recueil des Cours (1970) 64.
314. Nicaragua Case, paras.172-190.
315. Ibid., paras. 218-220. See the discussion of
this aspect of the Nicaragua Case in Meron – The Geneva Conventions
as Customary Law, 81 A.J.I.L. (1987) 348. Contrary to the argument of the
Defence for Mr. Delalic and Mr. Delic, the nature of the court’s discussion
of this matter is irrelevant, as is the question of whether it is binding upon
the Trial Chamber.
316. Ibid., para. 218.
317. Akayesu Judgement.
318. Ibid., para. 608.
319. Report of the Secretary-General, paras. 34-35.
320. Provisional Verbatim Record of the Three Thousand Two Hundred
and Seventeenth Meeting, 25 May 1993, S/PV. 3217, 25 May 1993, p. 15.
321. Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, paras. 128-136.
322. See ibid., paras. 130-132.
323. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its
forty-eighth session, 6 May-26 July 1996, General Assembly Official Records, fifty-first
Session, supp. No. 10 UN Doc. A/51/10.
324. 1977 Geneva Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Convention
of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International
Armed Conflicts.
325. Rome Statute, The International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998,
A/CONF.183/9 (hereafter "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court"),
Article 8(c).
326. Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 5 of
Security Council resolution 955 (1994), 13 Feb. 1995, UN Doc. S/1995/134, para.
12.
327. Criminal Code of SFRY, 1990 ed., Art. 142-143.
328. The Trial Chamber is unconvinced by, and finds no reason to
discuss, the various additional arguments raised by some members of the Defence,
seeking to challenge the applicability of common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
329. Art. 46 of the Regulations states: "Family honour and
rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions
and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated."
Art. 47 further states that "Pillage is formally forbidden". Art. 33
of the Fourth Geneva Convention also states that "Pillage is prohibited".
See also, Art. 15 of Geneva Convention I, Art. 18 of Geneva Convention
II and Art. 18 of Geneva Convention III.
330. Report of the Secretary-General, paras. 41 and 42.
331. Report of the Secretary-General, para. 54.
332. Tadic Judgment, para. 669. In addition to the substantial
case law cited therein, reference may be made to a number of international legal
instruments which recognise the individual culpability of individuals who
have ordered, incited, aided and abetted or otherwise participated in criminal
offences. See e.g. article III of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (1948); article III of the International Convention on
the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973); article 4(1)
of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
of Punishment (1984). See also article 2 of the ILC Draft Code and article
25 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. On the principle of
individual criminal responsibility for ordering the commission of a crime; see
also article 49 of Geneva Convention I; article 50 of Geneva Convention II;
article 129 of Geneva Convention III; article 146 of Geneva Convention IV.
333. Prosecution Closing Brief, Annex 1, RP D2712-D2717.
334. Ibid., RP D 2710.
335. Ibid.
336. Delalic Closing Brief, RP D8592-D8594; Delic Closing Brief,
RP D8254; Mucic Closing Brief, RP D8138-D8140. The Trial Chamber notes that the
accused Esad Landzo has not presented any arguments on this matter.
337. Tadic Judgment, para. 689. See also paras. 681-688,
and the authorities cited therein.
338. Ibid., para. 674. See also paras. 675-680 and
the authorities cited therein.
339. Ibid., paras. 678-687, 689-691 and the authorities cited
therein.
340. Ibid., para. 676.
341. Ibid., para. 677.
342. Ibid., para. 692.
343. In this Judgement the Trial Chamber employs the terms "command
responsibility" and "superior responsibility" interchangeably.
344. Report of the Secretary-General, para. 56.
345. ILC Draft Code 1996. See also International Committee
of the Red Cross, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the
Geneva Conventions of 12 Aug. 1949 (Yves Sandoz et al. eds., 1987)
(hereafter "Commentary to the Additional Protocols"), para. 3537.
346. Cf. Commentary to the Additional Protocols, para. 3530.
347. Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War
and on Enforcement of Penalties - Report Presented to the Preliminary Peace Conference,
Versailles, 29 March 1919, reprinted in 14 AJIL, 95 (1920), p. 121.
348. See Vol. IV, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals
(UN War Crimes Commission London, 1949) (hereafter "Law Reports") p.
87.
349. See Vol. IV, Law Reports, p.88.
350. Vol. IV, Law Reports, p.1.
351. In Re Yamashita, 327 US 1, 14-16 (1945). This case was
brought before the Supreme Court on petition for writ of habeas corpus,
and presented the Court with the limited issue of whether the Military Commission
in Manila possessed lawful jurisdiction to try Yamashita. It was alleged that
such jurisdiction was lacking, inter alia, on the ground that the charges
preferred against Yamashita failed to allege a violation of the laws of war. In
rejecting this contention the Court described "the gist of the charge"
against Yamashita as one of an unlawful breach of duty as an army commander to
control the operations of his command by permitting them to commit a number of
atrocities.
352. United States v. Karl Brandt et al., Vol. II, Trials
of War Criminals before the Nürnberg Military Tribunals under Control Council
Law No. 10, (U.S. Govt. Printing Office: Washington 1950) 186, (hereafter
"TWC") p. 212 (relating to the criminal responsibility of the accused
Schroeder). See also the tribunal’s finding in relation to the accused
Handloser, ibid., p. 207.
353. United States v. Wilhelm List et al., Vol. XI, TWC, 1230, 1303.
354. United States v Wilhelm von Leeb et al., Vol. XI, TWC, 462,
512.
355. United States v. Soemu Toyoda, Official Transcript of
Record of Trial, p. 5006. In greater detail, the tribunal declared the essential
elements of command responsibility to be: 1. […] that atrocities were
actually committed; 2. Notice of the commission thereof. This notice may
be either: (a.) Actual, as in the case of an accused who sees their commission
or who is informed thereof shortly thereafter; or (b.) Constructive. That is,
the commission of such a great number of offences within his command that a reasonable
man could come to no other conclusion than that the accused must have known of
the offences or of the existence of an understood and acknowledged routine for
their commission; 3. Power of command. That is, the accused must be proved to
have actual authority over the offenders to issue orders to them not to commit
illegal acts, and to punish offenders; 4. Failure to take such appropriate measures
as are within his power to control the troops under his command and to prevent
acts which are violations to the laws of war; 5. Failure to punish offenders.
(Ibid., pp. 5005-06).
356. CCDH/I/SR.64, in Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference
on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable
in Armed Conflicts (Swiss Federal Political Department: Bern 1978) (hereafter
"Official Records") Vol. IV, p. 315, para. 61.
357. CCDH/1/SR.71, in Official Records, Vol. IX, p. 399, para.2.
358. US Department of Army FM 27-10: The Law of Land Warfare (1956),
para 501; The War Office, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual
of Military Law (The War Office: London 1958), para. 631.
359. SFRY Federal Secretariat for National Defence, Regulations
Concerning the Application of International law to the Armed forces of SFRY (1988)
Art. 21, reprinted in M. Cherif Bassiouni’s, The Law of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (1996), p. 661.
360. ILC Draft Code, p. 34, Art. 6.
361. Art. 28(2) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court.
362. Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5310-D5311.
363. The Trial Chamber notes that the accused Zdravko Mucic has
offered only limited arguments on the requisite standard for the imposition of
individual criminal responsibility under Art. 7(3) of the Statute.
364. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5628.
365. See Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP
D5818.
366. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5637.
367. Delalic Pre-Trial Brief, RP D2941.
368. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5624.
369. Ibid., RP D5627.
370. Ibid., RP D5586; Delalic Closing Brief, RP D8578.
371. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5579-D5592. See also Transcripts
from the hearing of oral arguments on the Motion to Dismiss, T. 9991-9994, Delic’s
Pre-Trial Brief, RP D1809; Hazim Delic’s Response to the Prosecutor’s
Pre-Trial Brief, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 3 March 1997 (RP D2930-D2988); Delic’s
Closing Brief RP D8219-D8220.
372. Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5305-D5306;
Prosecution Response to the Pre-Trial Briefs of the Accused, RP D3358; Prosecution’s
Closing Brief, RP D2798-D2799.
373. Commentary to the Additional Protocols, para. 3544.
374. UN Doc. S/PV.3217 (25 May 1993), p. 16.
375. Prosecutor v. Milan Martic, Case No. IT-95-11-I, 8 March
1996 (RP D170-D183), D175.
376. Commission of Experts Report, p. 16 (Exhibit 39).
377. The Complete Transcripts of the Proceedings of the International
Military Tribunal for the Far East, reprinted in R. John Pritchard and Sonia
Magbanua Zaide (eds.), The Tokyo War Crimes Trial, Vol. 20 (Garland Publishing:
New York & London 1981) (hereafter "Tokyo Trial Official Transcript"),
49,816.
378. Ibid., p. 49,791.
379. Ibid., p. 49,831.
380. Trial of Friedrich Flick et al, Vol. VI, TWC, 1187.
381. See Trial of Friedrich Flick et al., Vol VI, TWC, pp. 11-16.
382. Trial of Friedrich Flick et al, Vol. VI, TWC, 1187, 1202.
383. Trial of Friedrich Flick et al., Vol IX, Law
Reports, p. 54.
384. The Government Commissioner of the General Tribunal of the
Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany v. Herman Roechling
and Others, Indictment and Judgement of the General Tribunal of the Military
Government of the French Zone of Occupation in Germany, Vol. XIV, TWC, Appendix
B, 1061.
385. Ibid., pp. 1072-74.
386. The Government Commissioner of the General Tribunal of the
Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany v. Herman Roechling
and Others, Judgement on Appeal to the Superior Military Government Court
of the French Occupation Zone in Germany, Vol. XIV, TWC, Appendix B, 1097, 1136.
387. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5636, citing Telford Taylor, The
Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials (Back Bay Publishing 1992) p. 105.
388. United States v Wilhelm von Leeb et al., Vol. XI, TWC, 462,
513-514.
389. United States v. Wilhelm List et al., Vol. XI, TWC,
1230, 1286, 1288 (the accused von Geitner); United States v. Wilhelm von Leeb
et al., Vol. XI, TWC, 462, p. 514.
390. United States v Wilhelm von Leeb et al., Vol. XI, TWC, 462,
pp. 513-514.
391. Tokyo Trial Official Transcript, 49,820-1 (emphasis added).
392. William H. Parks, Command Responsibility for War Crimes,
62 Mil. L. Rev. 1, (1973) 86.
393. Commentary to the Additional Protocols, para. 3555.
394. Ibid., n. 9.
395. United States v. Wilhelm List et al., Vol. XI, TWC, 1230, 1260;
United States v. Wilhelm von Leeb et al., Vol. XI, TWC, 462, 542-549, 630-632.
396. United States v. Wilhelm List et al., Vol. XI, TWC, 1230, 1260.
397. United States v Wilhelm von Leeb et al., Vol. XI, TWC, 462,
512.
398. United States v. Soemu Toyoda, Official Transcript of
Record of Trial, p. 5012.
399. United States v. Oswald Pohl et al, Vol. V, TWC, 958.
400. Ibid., pp. 1052-53.
401. Tokyo Trial Official Transcript, 49,820-1.
402. See Hessler, Command Responsibility for War Crimes,
82 Yale Law Journal, 1274 (1973) n.12.
403. See Tokyo Trial Official Transcript, 49,791.
404. The Government Commissioner of the General Tribunal of the
Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany v. Herman Roechling
and Others, Indictment and Judgement of the General Tribunal of the Military
Government of the French Zone of Occupation in Germany, Vol. XIV, TWC, Appendix
B, 1075, 1092.
405. ILC Draft Code, p. 37.
406. Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5810; Prosecution’s
Pre-Trial Brief, RP D2836.
407. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5634-D5636.
408. Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5808. See also
Prosecution Response to the Pre-Trial Briefs of the Accused, RP D3359-D3360.
409. Trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita, Vol. IV, Law Reports,
p. 94 (footnote and emphasis in original omitted and emphasis added).
410. Commentary to the Additional Protocols, paras. 3546-8, n.39
with further reference to the trials of Takashi Sakai, Kurt Student, Kurt Meyer
and Karl Rauer.
411. United States v Wilhelm von Leeb et al., Vol. XI, TWC, 462,
568.
412. Ibid., pp. 547-49.
413. Commission of Experts Report, p. 17 (Exhibit 39).
414. Tokyo Trial Official Transcript, 48,445.
415. United States v. Wilhelm List et al., Vol. XI, TWC, 1230, 1271.
416. United States v. Soemu Toyoda [Official Transcript of
Record of Trial], p. 5006 (emphasis added).
417. United States v. Oswald Pohl et al, Vol. V, TWC, 958, 1054.
418. Ibid., p. 1055 (emphasis added).
419. The Government Commissioner of the General Tribunal of the
Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany v. Herman Roechling
and Others, Judgment on Appeal to the Superior Military Government Court of
the French Occupation Zone in Germany, Vol. XIV, TWC, Appendix B, 1097, 1106.
420. Draft Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949 – ICRC, in Official Records, Vol. I, Part Three, p. 25.
421. CDDH/1/306, in Official Records, Vol. III, p. 328.
422. Michael Bothe, Karl Josef Partsch, Waldemar A. Solf, Commentary
on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Martinus
Nijhoff: The Hague 1982) (hereafter "Bothe Commentary") p. 525.
423. Thus the French representative, insisting on the French text
remaining as drafted, declared that "[a]ny resulting difference between the
two texts would at least not be a difference of substance." Similarly
the Canadian delegate stated that the English text amounted to saying in legal
terms precisely what the French text said. See CCDH/I/SR.61, in Official
Records, Vol. IX, p. 278, paras. 56 and 57.
424. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 28(1)(a).
It will be observed that the Statute adopts a different mental standard for superiors
other than military commanders or persons effectively acting as a military
commander, declaring them to be criminally liable if they "either knew, or
consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that the subordinates
were committing or about to commit" crimes within the jurisdiction of the
court. See ibid., Art. 28(2)(a).
425. ILC Draft Code, in which the International Law Commission stated
its view as follows: "for the superior to incur responsibility, he must have
had the legal competence to take measures to prevent or repress the crime
and the material possibility to take such measures. Thus, a superior would not
incur criminal responsibility for failing to perform an act which was impossible
to perform in either respect", pp. 38-39.
426. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5629.
427. Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5807-D5808.
428. The one authority cited by the Defence is the position adopted
by Cherif Bassiouni. As part of his analysis of the requirement that the superior
has failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish
the crimes of his subordinates, this author indeed suggests the existence of causation
as "the essential element" in cases of command responsibility. See
M. Cherif Bassiouni, The Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia (1996), p. 350. See also M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes
Against Humanity in International Criminal Law, 372 (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht
1992), p. 372.
429. M. Cherif Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity in International
Criminal Law (1992) Chapter 3, p. 113 (footnote omitted).
430. See R. v. Wimbledon JJ, ex p. Derwent [1953] 1 QB 380.
431. See Arts. 2-5 of the Statute.
432. In relation to the Third Geneva Convention, Levie has written
that "wilful killing" means "murder – an offense under the
military and civilian penal codes of every civilized nation." H. Levie
– Prisoners of War in Armed Conflict, Naval War College International
Law Studies (vol. 59), p. 353.
433. While the terminology utilised varies, these two elements have
been described as "universal and persistent in mature systems of law".
See Morissette v. United States (1952) 342 U.S. 246.
434. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention states that
"[w]ilful killing would appear to cover cases where death occurs through
a fault of omission", p. 597.
435. An examination of various domestic legal systems reveals that:
in England a ‘substantial’ or ‘significant’ contributing cause
is sufficient: R. v. Hennigan [1971] 3 All E.R. 133; in Australia a
‘substantial’ or ‘significant’ contributing cause is also
the test: Royall v. R. (1991) 172 CLR 378 (High Court); in the United States,
most jurisdictions require an ‘operative cause’, being sufficiently
direct or operative: Commonwealth v. Rementer 598 A. 2d 1300; in Canada
the requirement is for a contributing cause greater than de minimus: Smithers
v. R. (1977) 75 DLR (3d) 321. Belgium requires ‘adequate causation’
to be established: see Hennau and Verhaegan, Droit Pénal Général
(1991). The test in Norway is also ‘adequate causation’: see
Johannes Andenaes, The General Part of the Criminal Law of Norway (1965),
p. 211ff. Under German law, a ‘significant and operative cause’ is required:
see Hans-Heinrich Jescheck and Thomas Weigend, Lehrbuch des Strafrechts:
Allgemeiner Teil (1996), pp. 275, 286-289. The Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad)
has referred to the ‘reasonable imputability’ of the consequences to
the accused: see Hazewinkel-Suringa, Inleiding tot de Studie van het
Nederlands Strafrecht (1995), pp. 184-186.
436. See Prosecution Response to the Pre-Trial Briefs of
the Accused, RP D3326.
437. Commentary to the Additional Protocols, para. 3474.
438. Once again, it is not altogether clear whether the Defence
for Mr. Mucic joins with the other Defence in relation to this matter.
439. See Landzo Pre-Trial Brief, RP D1899; Delic Pre-Trial
Brief, RP D2792.
440. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5672.
441. [1981] AC 394 HL in ibid., RP D5668.
442. R v. Sheppard [1981] AC 394 HL, p. 418.
443. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5668.
444. Commentary, p. 222 (footnote omitted).
445. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5672.
446. Prosecution’s Response to Motion to Dismiss, RP D5780.
447. See Dieter Fleck (ed.) – The Handbook of Humanitarian
Law in Armed Conflicts (1995), p. 532, which states simply that the term "wilful
killing" "covers all cases in which a protected person is killed."
448. American Jurisprudence (2nd ed. 1995) –
Homicide: Malice, or malice aforethought § 50.
449. R v. Crabbe (1985) 58 ALR 417. Cf. the previous
view that the possibility of death or grievous bodily harm might be sufficient,
Pemble v. the Queen, (1971) 124 CLR 107.
450. Canadian Criminal Code, RSC 1985, Art. 229.
450. Criminal Code, s. 300.
450. For Belgium, see Christine Hennau and Jacques Verhaegen,
Droit Pénal Général (1991) paras. 350ff. For Germany, see Adolf
Schönke and Horst Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch Kommentar (1997). For Italy,
see Francesco Antolisei, Manuale di Diritto Penale (1989) pp. 305-306.
450. Model Penal Code, §210.2(1)(b). See Fletcher - Rethinking
Criminal Law (1978) (hereafter "Fletcher") p. 265.
450. Fletcher, p. 451.
450. Art. 12 Geneva Conventions I and II; Art. 50 Geneva Convention
I; Art. 51 Geneva Convention II; Arts. 17, 87 and 130 Geneva Convention III; Arts.
32 and 147 Geneva Convention IV; common Art. 3 Geneva Conventions I–IV;
Art. 75 Additional Protocol I; Art. 4 Additional Protocol II.
450. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5772; Prosecution Closing Brief, RP
D2723-D2724. The Commentary states that torture is "the infliction of suffering
on a person to obtain from that person, or another person, confessions or
information … It is more than a mere assault on the moral or physical integrity
of a person. What is important is not so much the pain itself as the purpose behind
its infliction", p. 598.
450. Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5772; Prosecution
Closing Brief, RP D2723.
450. Nürnberg Charter, p.10.
450. Republic of Ireland v United Kingdom, 2 EHRR 25, 1979-80, (hereafter
"Northern Ireland Case").
460. Art. 5 provides "No one shall be subjected to torture
or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
461. Art. 7 provides "No one shall be subjected to torture
or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one
shall be subjected without free consent to medical or scientific experimentation".
462. Art. 3 provides "No one shall be subjected to torture
or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
463. Art. 5(2) provides "No one shall be subjected to torture
or to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived
of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of
the human person."
464. Art. 1 provides "The State Parties undertake to prevent
and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention."
465. Art. 5 states "Every individual shall have the right to
the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of
his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly
slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment
shall be prohibited."
466. Professor P. Kooijmans, Special Rapporteur for Torture, enumerated
a number of specific international instruments that prohibit torture or other
ill treatment. "Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment", Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. P. Kooijmans, appointed
pursuant to Commission on Human Rights res. 1985/33 E/CN.4/1986/15, 19 Feb. 1986,
(hereafter "Report of the Special Rapporteur"), para. 26.
467. As at 5 Nov. 1998.
468. GA res. 3452 (XXX), annex, 30 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 34), 91,
U.N. Doc. A/10034 (1975).
469. Jus cogens is a peremptory norm of international law
that may only be modified by a subsequent norm of jus cogens. See Art.
53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (A/CONF.39/27(1969)).
470. See Report of the Special Rapporteur, para. 3.
471. See e.g. Art. 2(2) Torture Convention; Art. 15(2) European
Convention; Art. 4(2) ICCPR; Art. 27(2) American Convention on Human Rights; Art.
5 Inter-American Convention.
472. See the fifth paragraph of the preamble of the Torture
Convention, Report of the Special Rapporteur, para. 31 and Nigel S. Rodley, The
Treatment of Prisoners under International Law (2nd Edition Clarendon Press,
Oxford, forthcoming 1998) (hereafter "Rodley") p. 85.
473. The Convention entered into force on 28 Feb. 1987.
474. Art. 2 provides: "… [t]orture shall be understood
to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering
is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means
of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty,
or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods
upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish
his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or
mental anguish."
475. Muteba v. Zaire, (124/1982) Report of the Human Rights
Committee. UN Official Records of the General Assembly (hereafter "GAOR"),
22nd Session, Supplement No. 40, (1984), para.10.2.
476. Setelich v. Uruguay, (63/1979) Report of Human Rights
Committee, GAOR, 14th Session, para. 16.2. The practice of plantones
involves forcing prisoners to remain standing for extremely long periods of
time.
477. Weinberger v. Uruguay, (28/1978) Report of Human Rights
Committee, GAOR, 31st Session, para. 4.
478. The Greek Case, 1969, Y.B.Eur.Conv. on H.R. 12 (hereafter
"Greek Case").
479. Greek Case, para. 504.
480. See Northern Ireland Case, para. 167.
481. Ibid., para. 167.
482. See e.g. Rodley, p. 117.
483. See Cariboni v. Uruguay, (159/1983) Report of the Human
Rights Committee, GAOR, 31st Session, para 4.
484. Aksoy v. Turkey, Judgement of 18 Dec. 1996, ECHR.
485. Ibid., para. 64.
486. Aydin v. Turkey, Judgement of 25 Sept. 1997, ECHR.
487. Ibid., para. 84.
488. Report of the Special Rapporteur, para 119.
489. Rodley, p. 105.
490. Report of the Special Rapporteur, para 38.
491. See J. Herman Burgess and Hans Danelius, A Handbook on the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht 1988), p. 119.
492. Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR–96-4-T,
Trial Chamber I, 2 Sept. 1998.
493. Ibid., p. 241.
494. Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
Report No. 5/96, Case No. 10.970, 1 March 1996.
495. Ibid., p. 187.
496. Ibid., p. 185.
497. Ibid., p. 186 (footnote omitted).
498. Ibid., p. 187.
499. Ibid., p. 186.
500. Aydin v. Turkey, para. 40, sub-para. 4.
501. Ibid., para. 82.
502. Ibid., paras. 83 and 86 (emphasis added).
503. Ibid., p. 38. Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Gölcüklü,
Matscher, Pettiti, De Meyer, Lopes Rocha, Makarczyk and Gotchev on the Alleged
Ill-treatment (Art. 3 of the Convention), p.45.
504. Ibid., Partly Concurring, Partly Dissenting Opinion
of Judge Matscher, p. 40, and Partly Concurring, Partly Dissenting Opinion of
Judge Pettiti, p. 41.
505. Akayesu Judgement, para. 597.
506. E/CN.4/1992/SR.21, para.35. See "Question of the human
rights of all persons subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment, in particular:
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"
Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley, submitted pursuant to Commission
on Human Rights resolution 1992/32, E/CN.4/1995/34, para. 16.
507. Report of the Special Rapporteur, para. 119.
508. Commission of Experts Report, Annexes IX to XII S/1994/674/Add.2
(Vol.V), para. 25.
509. "Contemporary Forms of Slavery: Systematic Rape, Sexual
Slavery and Slavery-like Practices during Armed Conflict"; Final Report submitted
by Ms. Gay J. McDougall, Special Rapporteur, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/13, 22 June
1998, para. 55.
510. Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5767.
511. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5541-D5546; The arguments were repeated
in the closing submissions by the Defence for Delalic; Delalic Closing Brief,
RP D8598-D8603 and by the Defence for Landzo; Landzo Closing Brief, RP D9081-D9086;
Closing oral arguments, T. 15602.
512. Art. 50 Geneva Convention I; Art. 51 Geneva Convention II;
Art. 130 Geneva Convention III; and Art. 147 Geneva Convention IV.
513. Commentary to Geneva Convention II, p. 269 and Commentary to
Geneva Convention III, p. 628.
514. Commentary, p. 599.
515. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2722.
516. Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5765; and
Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2722.
517. Tadic Judgment, para. 723.
518. Ibid.
519. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5530-D5532; The argument was repeated
in the closing submissions by the Defence for Delalic, Delalic Closing Brief,
RP D8595-D8597.
520. T. 15602.
521. Art. 50 Geneva Convention I; Art. 51 Geneva Convention II;
Art. 130 Geneva Convention III; Art. 147 Geneva Convention IV.
522. Art. 5 Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Art. 7 ICCPR;
Art. 3 European Convention; Art. 5 African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights; Art. 5(2) American Convention on Human Rights; Art. 6 Inter-American
Convention; Art. 16 Torture Convention; and Art. 3 Declaration on Torture.
523. Commentary, p. 598.
524. Ibid., p. 483.
525. Commentary to the Second Geneva Convention, p. 268. The Commentary
to the Third Geneva Convention similarly states that "[t]he requirement of
humane treatment and the prohibition of certain acts inconsistent with it
are general and absolute in character", p. 140.
526. Commentary, p. 598.
527. Commentary to the Second Geneva Convention, p. 268.
528. Commentary to the Third Geneva Convention, p. 627.
529. Commentary, p. 204.
530. Commentary, p. 199-200.
531. Commentary, p. 204.
532. Commentary, p. 204.
533. Commentary, p. 204-205.
534. Commentary, p. 204.
535. Commentary, p. 221.
536. Commentary, p. 222.
537. Commentary to the Third Geneva Convention, p. 140, (emphasis
added).
538. Commentary to the Third Geneva Convention, p. 141.
539. Commentary to the Third Geneva Convention, p. 141.
540. Commentary to the First Geneva Convention, p. 137; Commentary
to the Second Geneva Convention, p.91.
541. Commentary to the First Geneva Convention, p. 137.
542. Commentary to the Third Geneva Convention, p.174.
543. Commentary to the Third Geneva Convention, p.174.
544. Commentary to Additional Protocol II, para. 4521.
545. Commentary to the First Geneva Convention, p.3.
546. Commentary to the First Geneva Convention, p.4.
547. ILC Draft Code, p. 103.
548. For example, in Tyrer v. United Kingdom, 2 EHRR 1, 1979-80,
the Court employed a sliding scale, based on the level of severity of the suffering
occasioned by the ill-treatment, to classify the alleged offence under article
3. The Court found that the punishment at issue did not "amount to"
torture, nor was the suffering occasioned by the punishment severe enough to bring
it within the definition of inhuman treatment under article 3. However, the Court
recognised a violation of article 3 of the European Convention, as the punishment
attained the minimum level of severity required to constitute degrading treatment.
549. Aksoy v. Turkey, para. 63.
550. Northern Ireland Case, para. 167.
551. Aydin v. Turkey, para. 85.
552. Aksoy v. Turkey, para. 64.
553. A v. United Kingdom, Judgement 23 Sept. 1998, Eur. Ct.
H.R., para.20 (citing: Costello-Roberts v. United Kingdom, Judgement 25
March 1993, 247-C Eur. Ct. H.R. (Ser.A) 1993).
555. Tomasi v. France, 13 EHRR 1, 1993, para. 115.
555. Ribitsch v. Austria, 21 EHRR 573, 1996.
556. Ibid., para. 38.
557. A v. United Kingdom, Judgement 23 Sept. 1998, Eur. Ct.
H.R., para. 21.
558. As discussed in Yagiz v. Turkey, 22 EHRR 573, 1996.
The original definition of inhuman treatment set forth in the Greek Case
contained an additional element, whereby the applicant had to show that in
the particular situation, the treatment alleged to constitute a violation of article
3 was unjustifiable. However, this notion of justifiability was effectively abandoned
by the Court which later held that the rights under article 3 are absolute and
non-derogable. See e.g. Chahal v. United Kingdom, 23 EHRR 413, 1997,
para. 79.
559. General Comment of the Human Rights Committee 20/44 of 3 April
1992, para. 4.
560. Ibid.
561. (191/1985) Human Rights Committee, GAOR, 31ST Session.
562. Tshisekedi v. Zaire, (242/1987), Human Rights Committee,
GAOR, 37th Session.
563. Ibid., para. 13.
564. Soriano de Bouton v. Uruguay, (37/1978), Human Rights
Committee, GAOR, 12th Session.
565. Manfred Nowak - UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
CCPR Commentary, p.131, (hereafter "Nowak Commentary").
566. Nowak Commentary, p.131.
567. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2717; Prosecution Pre-Trial
Brief, RP D2825.
568. Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5765.
569. Tadic Judgment, paras. 723-726.
570. Tadic Judgment, para. 723.
571. Tadic Judgment, para. 725.
572. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5545.
573. Tadic Judgment, para. 723.
574. Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5764.
575. Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, RP D2827.
576. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5513.
577. Commentary, p. 599.
578. Commentary, p. 202.
579. Gehring - Loss of Civilian Protections under the Fourth Geneva
Convention and Protocol I, Military Law Review (hereafter "Gehring"),
Vol. 90 (1980), Pamphlet No. 27-100-90, 49, p. 79; Commentary, pp. 52-53.
580. See Commentary, p. 58: "The article, as it stands,
is involved – one might even say, open to question. It is an important and
regrettable concession to State expediency. What is most to be feared is that
widespread application of the Article may eventually lead to the existence of
a category of civilian internees who do not receive the normal treatment laid
down by the Convention but are detained under conditions which are almost impossible
to check."
581. Commentary, p. 56.
582. Gehring, p. 80 (footnote 73).
583. Gehring, p. 67.
584. Commentary, p. 207.
585. Ibid., p. 201.
586. Commentary, p. 258.
587. Article 78 of Geneva Convention IV provides as follows: "If
the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security,
to take safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most,
subject them to assigned residence or to internment. Decisions regarding such
assigned residence or internment shall be made according to a regular procedure
to be prescribed by the Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the
present Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal for the parties
concerned. Appeals shall be decided with the least possible delay. In the event
of the decision being upheld, it shall be subject to periodical review, if possible
every six months, by a competent body set up by the said Power. Protected persons
made subject to assigned residence and thus required to leave their homes shall
enjoy the full benefit of Article 39 of the present Convention."
588. Gehring, p. 87; Commentary, p. 258.
589. This point is also emphasised in article 132, Geneva Convention
IV which provides as follows: "Each interned person shall be released by
the Detaining Power as soon as the reasons which necessitated his internment
no longer exist. The Parties to the conflict shall, moreover, endeavour during
the course of hostilities, to conclude agreements for the release, the repatriation,
the return to places of residence or the accommodation in a neutral country of
certain classes of internees, in particular children, pregnant women and mothers
with infants and young children, wounded and sick, and internees who have been
detained for a long time."
590. Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, RP D2824; Prosecution Closing
Brief, RP D2731.
591. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5507-D5508; cf. Mucic Closing
Brief, RP D8093-D8094.
592. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5506-D5507.
593. T. 15603, closing argument by Mr. Greaves.
594. This article provides, in full: "Family honour and rights,
the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and
practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated."
595. See Hague Regulations articles 48, 49, 51 to 53.
596. As demonstrated by the inclusion of this prohibition among
the provision in Section I of Part III of Geneva Convention IV "Provisions
common to the Territories of the Parties to the conflict and to occupied territories".
597. For an early statement recognising the criminal nature of such
acts, see the Report of the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of
the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, presented to the Preliminary Peace
Conference, 29 March 1919 which in its list of war crimes included the acts of
pillage, confiscation of property, and exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant
contributions and requisitions, (14 AJIL (1920), p. 95, p. 115). This view was
subsequently affirmed by the inclusion of the offence of "plunder of public
and private property" in the Nürnberg Charter at Art. 6(b), and Control Council
Law No. 10, Art. II 1(b), and the judicial decision based on these instruments,
cited below.
598. See e.g. The Pohl case, Vol. V TWC, p. 958 ff.:
The IG Farben case, Vol. VIII TWC, p. 1081 ff.; The Krupp case,
Vol. IX TWC, p. 1327 ff; The Flick case, Vol. VI TWC, p. 1187 ff.
599. See Trial of Alois and Anna Bommer and their daughters
before the Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, Judgement delivered on 19 Feb.
1947, Vol. IX, Law Reports, p. 62 ff; Trial of August Bauer,
Judgement of the Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz, 10 June 1947; ibid.,
p. 65; Trial of Willi Buch, Judgement of the Permanent Military
Tribunal at Metz, 2 Dec. 1947, ibid., p. 65; Trial of Elizabeth Neber,
Judgement of the Permanent Military Tribunal at Metz 6 April 1948; ibid.
p. 65; Trial of Christian Baus, Judgement of the Permanent Military Tribunal
at Metz 21 Aug. 1947; ibid. p. 68 ff.
600. Law Reports, Vol. XV, p. 130.
601. Article 6(b) (Annex to the Agreement for the Prosecution and
Punishment of Major War Criminals of the European Axis (London Agreement), London,
8 Aug. 1945, 85 U.N.T.S. 251.
602. Law No. 10 of the Control Council for Germany, Art. 2(1)(b)
(Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany, No. 3, p. 22, Military Government
Gazette, Germany, British Zone of Control, No. 5, p. 46, Journal Officiel
du Commandement en Chef Francais en Allemagne, No. 12 of 11 Jan. 1946.
603. Statute of the International Tribunal, Art. 3(e).
604. Law Reports, Vol. IX, p. 64.
605. See e.g. The Krupp Trial, in which it was held that
acts of plunder had been committed "through changes of corporate property,
contractual transfer of property rights, and the like. It is the results that
count and though the results in the latter case were achieved through "contracts"
imposed on others, the illegal results, namely, the deprivation of property, was
achieved, just as though materials had been physically shipped to Germany",
(Vol. IX TWC, p. 1347).
606. Tadic Judgment, para. 539. See also, Akayesu Judgement, paras.
132-136.
607. Woolmington v. DPP [1935] AC 462.
608. Miller v. Minister of Pensions [1947] 1 All ER 372,
373-4.
609. See R. v. Kritz [1950] 1 KB 82, 90.
610. Dawson v. R. (1961) 106 CLR1, 18.
611. See Green v. R. (1972) 46 ALJR 545.
612. R. v. Carr-Briant [1943] KB 607, 612.
613. Sodeman v. R. [1936] 2 A11 ER 1138.
614. Zejnil Delalic is not charged with responsibility under count
49 (Plunder of Private Property).
615. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2977, Prosecution Response to
the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5804.
616. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2833-D2834, D2870.
617. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2833, D2854, D2859-D2860.
618. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2855-D2858.
619. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2829-D2833, Prosecution Response
to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5803-D5804.
620. Exhibit 99-7/5, Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2854.
621. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2851-D2854.
622. Ibid., RP D2868-D2869.
623. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2867.
624. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2867-D2869.
625. Exhibit 99-7/7, Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2848.
626. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2870, Response to Motion to
Dismiss, RP D5796.
627. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2866-D2867.
628. Exhibit 99-7/10.
629. Exhibit 99-7/11.
630. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2864-D2865.
631. Exhibit 162.
632. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2842.
633. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2841, D2866.
634. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2840-D2844.
635. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2836-D2837.
636. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2836.
637. Defence here indicating the Defence for the accused Zejnil
Delalic.
638. Delalic Closing Brief, RP D8540-D8546.
639. Ibid., RP D8550.
640. Ibid., RP D8540-D8546.
641. Ibid., RP D8525-D8530.
642. Ibid., RP D8522-D8523.
643. Ibid., RP D8512.
644. Ibid., RP D8510-D8512.
645. Ibid., RP D8497-D8505.
646. Exhibits 99-7/10, 99-7/11.
649. Ibid., RP D8396.
650. Exhibit 162.
651. Delalic Closing Brief, RP D8393.
652. Ibid., RP D8386-D8389.
653. Commentary to the Additional Protocols, para. 3544.
654. Ibid.
655. United States v. Wilhelm List et al., Vol XI, TWC, 1230, 1260.
656. See Exhibit 99-5, 22 Aug. 1996, p. 5.
657. See T. 8646.
658. See T. 12502-T. 12503.
659. See T. 11127.
660. See T. 11794.
661. See T. 12725-T. 12726.
662. See Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2858.
663. See Exhibit 124, pp. 1-2.
664. See Exhibit 147A.
665. See Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2857.
666. See Exhibit 144, p. 4.
667. See Exhibit 99-5/13-17.
668. Exhibit 99-5/15.
669. See also T. 12258.
670. See T. 11128-T. 11129, T. 11242-T. 11243.
671. See T. 11631-T. 11632.
672. See Exhibit 99-7/4.
673. See T. 10233.
674. See Exhibit 99-5, pp. 16
675. See T. 11535-T. 11536.
676. See T. 11128-T. 11129, T.11242-T. 11243; see also
T. 12258, S. Dzumhur.
677. See T. 11786-T. 11788, T.11808-T. 11811, T.11880, Dr.
Hadzihusejnovic.
678. See Exhibit D145-A9-7/1.
679. See also Exhibit 99-7/5, Exhibit 99-1, p. 13 and Exhibit
99-5, 23 Aug. 1996, pp. 11-15.
680. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2854.
681. See Vejzagic Report, pp. 32-33; and Hadzibegovic Report,
p. 32.
682. Delalic Closing Brief, RP D8548.
683. See e.g. Exhibit 127.
684See Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2850
685. See T. 11587-T. 11588.
686. See T. 11133-T. 11134, T. 11042, [efkija Kevric.
687. See T. 11020-T. 11024, T. 11034-11036.
688. See T. 12591.
689. See T. 12555.
690. Exhibit 99-1, p. 20.
691. See T. 11541.
692. See T. 11366.
693. See T. 11366-T. 11367.
694. See T. 11542.
695. See T. 4492.
696. See T. 11979.
697. See Exhibit 116.
698. See T. 11157, [efkija Kevric; T. 11543-T. 11545, Midhat
Cerovac; T. 11812, Dr. Hadzihusejnovic; T. 12594, [aban Dura~ic; T. 12785-T.
12786,. Mustafa Polutak; T. 12956, [ucro Pilica.
699. See T. 11163-T. 11164.
700. See T. 11381, Enver Tahirovic; T. 11813, Dr. Hadzihusejnovic;
T. 12600, [aban Dura~ic.
701. See T. 4494-T. 4495.
702. See T. 11948-T. 11949.
703. See Exhibit 127.
704. See T. 11022-T. 11023.
705. See T. 10549-T. 10550.
706. See T. 11795.
707. See T. 10550.
708. See T. 11023.
709. See T. 11574.
710. See T. 10552.
711. See T. 10891.
712. See T. 11151-T. 11154.
713. See T. 11652.
714. See T. 12592.
715. See T. 11794-T. 11795, T. 11917-T. 11918.
716. See Exhibit 99-5 p. 45.
717. See T. 5260, T. 5263.
718. See T. 5256.
719. See T. 5316.
720. See T. 5166, T. 5247.
721. See T. 5168.
722. See T. 5330.
723. See T. 5371.
724. See T. 5289.
725. See T. 5182.
726. See T. 5174-T. 5175.
727. See Exhibit 160, T. 5176.
728. See T. 5178.
729. See Exhibit 161, T. 5179-T. 5180.
730. Exhibit 160.
731. See T. 5286-T. 5287.
732. Exhibit 161.
733. See T. 5272-T. 5274.
734. See T. 11804-T. 11805; T. 11603-T. 11604; T. 11275,
T. 11202-T. 11203, T. 11328; T. 12267-T. 12268; T. 12593.
735. See T. 5273-T. 5274.
736. See T. 11804-T. 11805; T. 11603-T. 11604.
737. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2867.
738. See T. 11711-T. 11712.
739. See T. 5330.
740. See Exhibit D143\1, pp. 36-37.
741. See T. 8459-T. 8461, Gen. Jovan Divjak.
742. See T. 12789-T. 12790, Gen. Mustafa Polutak; T. 12957,
T. 13000, Col. [ucro Pilica.
743. See T. 12676-T. 12677.
744. See T. 11592-T. 11594, T. 11606, T. 11664-T. 11665,
Midhat Cerovac.
745. See Exhibit D146\1; T. 12799-T. 12800, Gen. Mustafa
Polutak; T. 12676-T. 12679, T. 12731-T. 12732, Brigadier Asim Dzambasovic.
746. See T. 12901-T. 12904, T. 12906, Husein Alic; Exhibit
D145-A6-6\1; T. 12563-T. 12564, ; Mustafa Dzelilovic; T. 12778-T 12779, Gen.
Mustafa Polutak.
747. Exhibit 99-7/10.
748. Exhibit 99-7/10.
749. Exhibit 99-7/11.
750. See T. 8100-T. 81002, T. 8282-T. 8288, Arif Pasalic;
T. 8445-T. 8446, Jovan Divjak.
751. See T. 8408, T. 8287-T. 8288, Arif Pasalic; T. 8454,
Jovan Divjak.
752. Exhibit 99-5, 23 Aug. 1996, pp. 44-48.
753. See T. 12693-T. 12694, T.12745.
754. See T. 11592, Midhat Cerovac; T. 12017, Dzevad Pasic.
755. See T. 12801-T. 12802, T. 12840-T. 12842, M. Polutak;
T. 12948, T. 13006-T. 13007, [ucro Pilica.
756. See T. 11108-T. 11109; T. 11287; T. 13017-T. 13018.
757. Dated 3 Aug. 1992.
758. Exhibit D169/1.
759. T. 13019-T. 13020, [ucro Pilica; T. 12860-T. 12863, Mustafa
Polutak; T. 12154-T. 12155, T. 12183-T. 12184, Zijad Salihamidzic.
760. Exhibits 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124,
125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146,
147A, 147B, 147C.
761. Decision on the Motion of the Prosecution for the Admissibility
of Evidence, 21 Jan. 1998, RP D5423–D5440, RP D5431.
762. Ibid., at RP D5430-D5431.
763. See T. 12440-T.12443, Ismet ^i{o.
764. See T. 12445-T. 12446, T. 12469-T. 12470, Ismet ^i{o;
T. 13038-T. 13043, Ekrem Milic.
765. See T. 13045-T. 13046, T. 13054-T. 13055, T. 13058-13059,
T. 13077, Ekrem Milic; T. 12446-T. 12447, Ismet ^i{o.
766. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D8498-D8510.
767. Ibid.
768. Exhibits 75, 84, 158, 159.
769. Exhibits 137, 141, 143.
770. Exhibit 192.
771. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D8505-D8506.
772. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D8494-D8498.
773. Ibid., RP D8490-D8494.
774. T. 15631–T. 15635.
775. Ibid., T. 15648.
776. Mucic Closing Brief, RP D8123-D8124.
777. Defence Closing Oral Argument T. 15646, Mucic Closing Brief
RP D8124.
778. See Exhibit 101-1, p. 7 and 10.
779. See Mucic Closing Brief, RP D8124.
780. Ibid.
781. "Criminal Liability for the Actions of Subordinates –
The Doctrine of Command Responsibility and it’s Analogues in United States
Law", 38 Harvard International Law Journal, 272 (1997), 292.
782. See Mucic Closing Brief, RP D8124.
783. See T. 4518.
784. See T. 1924.
785. See T. 1453.
786. See T. 4348-T. 4350.
787. See T. 4795.
788. See T. 5751.
789. See T. 5175-T. 5176, T. 5189-T. 5190.
790. See T. 5819-T. 5820, T. 5833-T. 5834.
791. See T. 13685.
792. Mucic Closing Brief, RP D8121.
793. T. 13478.
794. See T. 1453.
795. See T. 1612.
796. Mucic Closing Brief, RP D8114.
797. See T. 2350-T. 2351.
798. See T. 2524.
799. See T. 4157.
800. See T. 5043.
801. See T. 5153.
802. See T. 5494.
803. See T. 5763.
804. See T. 6255-T. 6256.
805. See T. 6673-T. 6674.
806. See T. 7046-T. 7047.
807. See T. 7444.
808. See T. 7808-T. 7809.
809. See T. 5968.
810. See T. 1331.
811. Dated 30 Aug. 1992.
812. See T. 1814.
813. See T. 5065-T. 5066.
814. See T. 2350-T. 2351.
815. See T. 5044.
816. See Exhibit 110.
817. See T. 1815.
818. See T. 4574-T. 4575.
819. See Exhibit 101-1, pp. 15, 54-55.
820. See Exhibit 101-1, p. 55.
821. Exhibit 101-1, p. 44.
822. Exhibit 101-1, pp. 43, 60.
823. See T. 4355-T. 4356.
824. See T. 5457.
825. See T. 7028.
826. See T. 4161.
827. See Exhibit 101-1, p. 57.
828. See T. 7163-T. 7164.
829. See T. 6711.
830. See T. 6715.
831. See T. 6685.
832. See T. 6876.
833. See T. 1993-T. 1994.
834. See T. 4760-T. 4762.
835. Vol. IV, Law Reports, p. 35.
836. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D3014-D3015.
837. Exhibit 103-1, p. 7.
838. Ibid., p. 7-8.
839. Ibid., p. 24.
840. Ibid., p. 53.
841. T. 15540.
842. Delic Closing Brief, RP D8239.
843. T. 8218.
844. T. 8495-T. 8500.
845. Exhibit 103-1, p. 7-8 and 10.
846. Ibid., p. 34.
847. Ibid., p. 38.
848. T. 7464, Witness J.
849. T. 7046, Milovan Kuljanin.
850. T. 514, Grozdana Cecez.
851. T. 5033, Witness B.
852. T. 2521, Mladen Kuljanin; T. 4564, Witness P; T. 6253, Risto
Vukalo; T. 4793, Mirko Đordic and T. 1451, Stevan Gligorevic.
853. T. 1612, Nedeljko Draganic.
854. T. 7702, Witness R.
855. T. 997, Branko Gotovac.
856. T. 1329, Witness F.
857. T. 5959.
858. T. 5998.
859. T. 5998.
860. T. 15338.
861. T. 15251.
862. T. 15088.
863. See e.g. T. 15375 and T. 15067.
864. T. 15044-T. 15045.
865. T. 514.
866. T. 4913.
867. T. 5761.
868. T. 5760.
869. T. 1454.
870. T. 1451.
871. T. 7801.
872. T. 1323.
873. Ibid,.
874. T. 1378-T. 1379.
875. T. 1337.
876. T. 4760.
877. T. 5183.
878. T. 5189-T. 5190.
879. T. 5188.
880. T. 7936.
881. T. 5974.
882. T. 4525.
883. Here meaning the Defence for Hazim Delic and Esad Landzo.
884. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5657-D5659.
885. T. 5481.
886. T. 5483.
887. As noted previously, the Trial Chamber by an Order of 21 April
1997 granted a request by the Prosecution to withdraw all charges relative to
paragraph 20 of the Indictment.
888. T. 7,787.
889. T. 7784.
890. The Defence here and in the following sub-sections referring
to the Defence for Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic and Hazim Delic.
891. T. 7792.
892. T. 5919.
893. T. 1881.
894. T. 2481.
895. T. 2479.
896. T. 5139.
897. See Delalic Closing Brief, RP D8462.
898. T. 15067.
899. Exhibit D106/3.
900. Exhibit 162, para. 7.
901. Delic Closing Brief, RP D8186-D8193.
902. Exhibit 103-1, p. 90-91.
903. T. 496.
904. T. 494.
905. T. 503.
906. T. 551.
907. T. 511.
908. T. 535.
909. Delic Closing Brief, RP D8182-D8186.
910. Exhibit 103-1, p. 91.
911. Tadic Judgment, para. 536 and Akayesu Judgement,
para. 134.
912. T. 1825 and T 1837.
913. T. 1780.
914. T. 1777-T. 1780.
915. The Defence here referring to the Defence for Zejnil Delalic,
Zdravko Mucic and Hazim Delic.
916. See T. 7119.
917. T. 2110.
918. T. 7028.
919. T. 15072.
920. The Defence in this section referring to the Defence for Zejnil
Delalic, Zdravko Mucic and Hazim Delic.
921. T. 1178.
922. T. 2356.
923. Delalic Closing Brief, RP D8416.
924. T. 4764.
925. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5528-D5527.
926. Exhibit 103-1, p. 93.
927. T. 7782, Witness R.
928. T. 4560, Witness P.
929. T. 4197, Novica \or|ic.
930. T. 1455, Stevan Gligorevic.
931. T. 5047, Witness B.
932. T. 4197.
933. T. 5047.
934. T. 5455 (Emphasis added).
935. T. 4780-T. 4781.
936. T. 4901.
937. T. 1902.
938. T. 558.
939. T. 1348.
940. T. 1378.
941. T. 2038.
942. T. 281.
943. T. 6371.
944. T. 4902.
945. T. 6285.
946. T. 4150.
947. T. 7774.
948. T. 7501.
949. T. 1900.
950. T. 2123, T.7120.
951. T. 4536.
952. T. 274.
953. T. 1798.
954. T. 1440.
955. T. 7445.
956. T. 5037.
957. T. 7706-T. 7707.
958. T. 5757.
959. T. 1215.
960. T. 2117.
961. T. 1537.
962. T. 2462.
963. T. 1615.
964. T. 1893.
965. T. 1260.
966. T. 4524.
967. T. 4525.
968. T. 2000.
969. T. 2165.
970. T. 5975, T. 5991.
971. T. 4526.
972. T. 2317.
973. T. 1630.
974. T. 7771.
975. T. 4720, T. 4910.
976. T. 6283.
977. T. 7751.
978. T. 4146-T. 4147.
976. T. 986.
980. T. 1216.
981. T. 4726.
982. T. 7752, T. 5758, T. 6275, T. 2317.
983. T. 7695.
984. T. 1188.
985. T. 2116.
986. T. 7593.
987. T. 7695.
988. T. 15345.
989. Prosecution Closing Brief, RP D2890.
990. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5514.
991. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5511.
992. Delalic Closing Brief, RP D8368.
993. Delic Pre-Trial Brief, RP D2799.
994. Delic Pre-Trial Brief, RP D2815-D2816.
995. T. 5292, Witness D; T. 10701, Witness Begtaševic; Vejzagic
Report, p. 44.
996. T. 481-T. 482.
997. T. 532-T. 533.
998. T. 980, T. 1009.
999. T. 4482-T. 4483.
1000. T. 1600-T. 1602.
1001. T. 2421-T. 2422.
1002. T. 4346.
1003. T. 5951.
1004. Exhibit 162. See also T. 5203.
1005. Exhibit 162/A.
1006. T. 5226.
1007. T. 5213.
1008. Prosecution Response to the Motion to Dismiss, RP D5760.
1009. The Defence here indicating the Defence for Mr. Delic and
Mr. Mucic.
1010. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5508, cf. Mucic Closing Brief,
RP D8094-D8096.
1011. Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 94.
1012. Motion to Dismiss, RP D5506-D5508, Mucic Closing Brief, RP
D8094-D8096.
1013. T. 5032.
1014. See for example, Section 27 Criminal Code of Nigeria.
Cap. 42 Laws of Nigeria 1958.
1015. See Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 87.
1016. See Landzo Closing Brief, RP D9183-D9184.
1017. Landzo Closing Brief, RP D9185.
1018. See Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, Judgement, Separate
Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah, Case No. IT-96-22-A, App. Ch., 7 October
1997, paras. 3-5; Decision on the Admissibility of the Prosecutor’s Appeal
from the Decision of a Confirming Judge Dismissing an Indictment against Theoneste
Bagasora and 28 others, Case No. ICTR-98-37-A, App. Ch. 8 June 1998, paras.
28-29; Prosecutor v. Tadic, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion Requesting
Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses, Case No. IT-94-1-T, T.Ch. I, 10
August 1995, para. 18.
1019. See section 2(1) of the Homicide Act of 1957.
1020. See e.g. section 122 of the French New Criminal Code,
section 21 of the German Criminal Code and section 89 of the Italian Code Penal.
The South African Criminal Procedure Code contains a similar provision in
section 78(7).
1021. See 5 & 6 Eliz. 2. C. 11.
1022. Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1950.
1023. R. v. Byrne [1960] 3 WLR 440.
1024. R. v. Lloyd (1967) 50 Cr. App. R. 61.
1025. R. v. Byrne [1960] 3 WLR 440.
1026. Ibid.
1027. See R. v. Gomez, 48 Cr. App. R. 310, CCA.
1028. Crimes Act 1900 s. 14 applying to the Australian Capital
Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory and Queensland.
1029. Halsburys Laws of Australia, Volume 9, Title 130.
1030. Ibid.
1031. Ibid.
1032. Criminal Procedure Act, s. 78(7).
1033. Ordinance 339.3.
1034. Penal Code of Singapore, s. 300, Exception 7.
1035. Offences Against the Persons Act 1868 (Amdt.) 1973, Walton
v. Queen [1978] AC. 788.
1036. Bahama Islands Homicide Act 1957 s.2 (1).
1037. New Criminal Code, Art. 122-1.
1038. Criminal Code, para. 21.
1039. Code Penal, Art. 89.
1040. ALI Model Penal Code 1962, Art. 4, Section 4.02, 4.03.
1041. See R. v. Dunbar [1958] 1 QB 1; R. v. Grant
[1960] Crim. L.R. 424.
1042. See T. 14264.
1043. T. 14573.
1044. T. 14288-T. 14289.
1045. T. 14399-T. 14400.
1046. See T. 14404.
1047. See T. 15155.
1048. See T. 15158.
1049. See T. 15172-T. 15173.
1050. T. 14561.
1051. T. 14565.
1052. T. 14586.
1053. See T. 15414-T. 15415.
1054. See T. 15117.
1055. See T. 15267.
1056. See Exhibit D46/4.
1057. T. 14243.
1058. See T. 14570-T. 14572.
1059. See T. 15230.
1060. See T. 15415 and T. 15421.
1061. Scheduling Order, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 10 Sept. 1998 (RP
D9643-D9646).
1062. Rule 6(C).
1063. See Criminal Code of the Socialist Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia, adopted by the SFRY Assembly at the session of the Federal Council
held on September 28, 1976 (Unofficial translation on file with Tribunal Library)
(hereafter "SFRY Penal Code") at Article 38.
1064. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Eighth
Edition, Edited by R. E. Allen.
1065. Sentencing Judgement, Case No. IT-96-22-T, 29 Nov.
1996 (RP D1/472bis-D58/472bis) (hereafter "Erdemovic Sentencing
Judgement, 29 November 1996"). Following a Judgement by the Appeals
Chamber, remitting the case to a different Trial Chamber, a second sentencing
Judgement was issued on March 5 1998. See Sentencing Judgement,
Case No. IT-96-21-Tbis, filed on 5 March 1998 (RP D481-D515) (hereafter
"Erdemovic Sentencing Judgement, 5 March 1998").
1066. See Erdemovic Sentencing Judgement, 29 Nov. 1996, RP D41/472bis.
1067. Sentencing Judgment, Case No. IT-94-1-T, 14 July 1997
(RP D17971-D18012) (hereafter "Tadic Sentencing Judgment").
1068. See Tadic Sentencing Judgment, RP D18008.
1069. Erdemovic Sentencing Judgement, 29 November 1996, RP D40/472bis
– D41/472bis.
1070. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,
Art. 23, para. 1.
1071. The Prosecutor v. Jean Kambanda, Case No. ICTR 97-23-S,
4 Sept. 1998, para. 23.
1072. Ibid., para. 28.
1073. T. 15924-T. 15930.
1074. T. 15927-T. 15928.
1075. G.A. res. 44/128, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) p. 207
U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989) which came into force on 11 July 1991.
1076See Statement by Mrs. Madeleine Albright to the Security
Council, Provisional Verbatim Record of the Three Thousand Two Hundred and
Seventeenth Meeting, 25 May 1993, U.N. Doc. S/PV. 3217, p. 17.
1077. Tadic Sentencing Judgment, RP D18008.
1078. Cherif Bassiouni, The Law of the International Tribunal for
the Former Yugoslavia, New York 1996, p. 702.
1079. Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 135.
1080. Trial Chamber II imposed sentences of various lengths for
the crimes which Mr. Tadic had been found guilty of. Of these, the greatest sentence
was that of 20 years, and all the sentences were set to run concurrently.
1081. See 18 U.S.C. §3661 (1998).
1082. See Canadian Criminal Code, section 726.1.
1083. Rule 80(B).
1084. See Commentary to the United States Sentencing Guidelines,
18 USCS Appx. §3C1.1 (1998).
1085. Sentencing Submission of the Prosecution, Case No. IT-96-21-T,
1 Oct. 1998 (RP D9660-D9787) (hereafter "Sentencing Submission of the Prosecution"),
RP D9779.
1086. Law Reports, Vol. IV, p. 95.
1087. Tadic Sentencing Judgment, RP D17981.
1088. Erdemovic Sentencing Judgement, 29 November 1996, RP D40/472bis.
1089. Tadic Sentencing Judgment, RP D17980-D17981.
1090. See Tadic Sentencing Judgment, RP D17979-D17980.
1091. See Erdemovic Sentencing Judgement, 5 March 1998, RP D497-D498.
1092. See T. 2187.
1093. See T. 541-T. 542.
1094. See T. 604.
1095. See T. 4574-T. 4575.
1096. See United States v. Wilhelm von Leeb et al., Vol. XI TWC
462, 553-565.
1097. Exhibits D109/3 and D112/3a.
1098. T. 16052-T. 16053.
1099. T. 16052-T. 16053 and T. 16056-T. 16057.
1100. T. 494.
1101. T. 1780.
1102. Sentencing Submission of the Prosecution, RP D9754.
1103T. 7774.
1104. T. 1631.
1105. T. 7704.
1106. T. 1777.
1107. T. 1617.
1108. T. 4800.
1109. T. 6280.
1110. T. 2409 and T. 1268.
1111. T. 4721-T. 4722 and T. 2000.
1112. T. 4286.
1113. See T. 5766-T. 5767, Branko Sudar.
1114. See T. 1638, Nedeljko Draganic.
1115. See e.g., T. 7798, Witness R.
1116. See T. 1914.
1117. See, e.g., T. 1378, Witness F.
1118. See Esad Landzo’s Submissions on Proposed Sentencing,
5 Oct. 1998, (RP D9827-D9887) (hereafter "Landzo Sentencing Brief").
1119. Sentencing Submission of the Prosecution, 1 Oct. 1998 (RP
D9660-D9787), RP D9763.
1120. Ibid., RP D9762.
1121. Exhibit D93/4.
1122. Statement by the Prosecutor following the Withdrawal of the
Charges Against 14 Accused, 8 May 1998 (CC/PIU/314-E).
1123. Decision on motion by the accused Zejnil Delalic based on
defects in the form of the Indictment, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 4 Oct. 1996 (RP D1576-D1590)
para. 24.
1124. Tadic Sentencing Judgment, RP D17972; Erdemovic
Sentencing Judgement, 5 March 1998, RP D494.
1125. This Rule provides: "In case of urgency, the Prosecutor
may request any State: (i) to arrest a suspect provisionally; […] The State
concerned shall comply forthwith, in accordance with Article 29 of the Statute."
1126. Warrant of Arrest, Order for Surrender, Case No. IT-96-21-I,
21 March 1996 (RP D293-D296).
1127. Warrant of Arrest, Order for Surrender, Case No. IT-96-21-I,
21 March 1996 (RP D304-D307); Warrant of Arrest, Order for Surrender, Case No.
IT-96-21-I, 21 March 1996 (RP D298-D301).