Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 255

 1                           Thursday, 30 June 2016

 2                           [Judgement]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           [The appellants entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 3.30 p.m.

 6             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good afternoon, everybody.

 7             Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  This is case

 9     IT-08-91-A, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Okay.  Before we commence, I want to make sure that

11     the parties can follow the proceedings in a language that they

12     understand.

13             I'll start with Mr. Stanisic.  Mr. Stanisic, you heard my

14     question.

15             THE APPELLANT STANISIC: [Interpretation] I understand and -- I

16     hear and understand the proceedings.  Thank you.

17             JUDGE AGIUS:  I thank you, Mr. Stanisic.

18             Mr. Zupljanin, same question.

19             THE APPELLANT ZUPLJANIN: [Interpretation] Same answer from me.

20     Also, I hear you very well.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, both.

22             Can I now please proceed to have the appearances of the parties,

23     starting with the Prosecution.

24             MS. BAIG:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Laurel Baig for the

25     Prosecution, joined by my colleagues Aditya Menon, Tod Schneider,


Page 256

 1     Grace Harbour, and Case Manager Janet Stewart.

 2             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, madam.

 3             Appearances for Mr. Stanisic.

 4             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE AGIUS:  Good afternoon.

 6             MR. ZECEVIC:  Appearing for Mico Stanisic today, myself,

 7     Slobodan Zecevic, lead counsel; Stephane Bourgon, co-counsel; and our

 8     colleagues Isabelle Martineau, James Jackson, and Relja Radovic.  Thank

 9     you very much.

10             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

11             Defence for Mr. Zupljanin.

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.

13     Dragan Krgovic, Tatjana Cmeric, Christopher Gosnell, Chad Mair, and

14     Milena Dzvdovic appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

15             JUDGE AGIUS:  Thank you.

16             Pursuant to a Scheduling Order issued on 2nd June 2016, the

17     Appeals Chamber today delivers its judgement in the case of the

18     Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.

19             I shall now read out a summary of the central findings of the

20     Appeals Chamber.  The summary does not constitute the official and

21     authoritative judgement of the Appeals Chamber.  The official judgement

22     is rendered in writing and will be distributed to the parties at the

23     close of this hearing.

24             This case relates to events which took place in Bosnia and

25     Herzegovina from at least the 1st of April 1992 to at least


Page 257

 1     December 1992.  Throughout this period, Mr. Stanisic was the minister of

 2     the Ministry of Interior of the Republika Srpska.  I will be referring as

 3     I go along to this as the RS MUP.  And RS for Republika Srpska.  By

 4     virtue of this position, he was also a member of the government of the

 5     Republika Srpska and Mr. Zupljanin was the chief of the regional Security

 6     Services Centre, which I will refer to as the CSB.  In addition, from at

 7     least the 5th of May 1992 until July 1992, Mr. Zupljanin was a member of

 8     the Autonomous Region of Krajina Crisis Staff.  I will at times refer to

 9     this as the ARK Crisis Staff.  When I further on will mention appellants,

10     that means I am referring to both Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Stanisic.

11             The Trial Chamber found that during the indictment period,

12     serious crimes were committed in the 20 municipalities listed in the

13     indictment, including the eight municipalities in the Autonomous Region

14     of Krajina.  I will be referring to these as municipalities and ARK

15     municipalities as I go along.  And the Trial Chamber also found that

16     these serious crimes affected thousands of victims.  The Trial Chamber

17     found that the appellants participated in a joint criminal enterprise

18     with the objective to "permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian

19     Croats from the territory of the planned Serbian state.  I will be

20     referring to this as the JCE.  It also found that this objective was

21     implemented through the crimes of deportation, other inhumane acts

22     consisting of forcible transfer, and persecutions through underlying acts

23     of forcible transfer and deportation as crimes against humanity.  These I

24     will be referring to as we go along as JCE I crimes.

25             The Trial Chamber further found that it was foreseeable for


Page 258

 1     Mr. Stanisic that persecutions as a crime against humanity, murder,

 2     torture, and cruel treatment as violations of the laws or customs of war,

 3     as well as murder, torture, and inhumane acts as crime against humanity,

 4     could be committed in the implementation of the JCE.  These I will be

 5     referring to as we go along as Mr. Stanisic's JCE III crimes.

 6             The Trial Chamber found that it was foreseeable to Mr. Zupljanin

 7     that the same crimes and extermination as a crime against humanity could

 8     be committed.  I will refer to these collectively as Mr. Zupljanin's JCE

 9     III crimes.

10             The Trial Chamber convicted the appellants pursuant to the first

11     category of JCE for persecutions through forcible transfer and

12     deportation as a crime against humanity.  It convicted them pursuant the

13     third category of joint criminal enterprise for persecutions through

14     several underlying acts as a crime against humanity and for murder and

15     torture as violations of the laws or customs of war.  In addition,

16     Mr. Zupljanin was convicted pursuant to the third category of JCE for

17     extermination and for ordering persecutions through plunder of property.

18             The Trial Chamber also found the appellants responsible for

19     murder, torture, inhumane acts, deportation, and inhumane acts consisting

20     of forcible transfer as crimes against humanity and cruel treatment as a

21     violation of the laws or customs of war but did not enter convictions for

22     these crimes on the basis of the principles relating to cumulative

23     convictions.

24             The appellants were both sentenced to 22 years of imprisonment.

25             Mr. Stanisic raises 16 grounds of appeal; while Mr. Zupljanin


Page 259

 1     raises six grounds of appeal.  The Prosecution, as I said, has also

 2     appealed and raises two grounds of appeal.

 3             The Appeals Chamber heard oral submissions by the parties on

 4     16th December 2015.  I will now summarise the Appeals Chamber's findings

 5     on the appellants' and the Prosecution's appeals, addressing first the

 6     submissions made by the appellants in relation to fair trail.

 7             Mr. Stanisic, in his ground of appeal 1 bis, and Mr. Zupljanin,

 8     in his sixth ground of appeal, submit that their right to a fair trial by

 9     an independent and impartial Tribunal or Court was violated as a result

10     of the participation of Judge Frederick Harhoff in the trial proceedings,

11     which they argue invalidates their convictions.

12             The Appeals Chamber finds that, contrary to the appellants'

13     submissions, Judge Harhoff's disqualification in the Seselj case does not

14     automatically disqualify him from other cases, and that the appellants

15     have failed to demonstrate that a reasonable observer, properly informed

16     of all the relevant circumstances, would reasonably apprehend bias on the

17     part of Judge Harhoff in this case.  According, the appellants have

18     failed to rebut the presumption of impartiality and failed to firmly

19     establish a reasonable appearance of bias on the part of Judge Harhoff.

20             Mr. Stanisic's ground of appeal 1 bis and Mr. Zupljanin's sixth

21     ground of appeal are therefore dismissed.

22             Before moving to the Appeals Chamber's findings on the remaining

23     challenges by the appellants, I note that the Appeals Chamber considers

24     that the section of the trial judgement dedicated to the conclusion on

25     the appellants' responsibility, the Trial Chamber did not provide


Page 260

 1     cross-references to earlier findings or citations to the evidence on the

 2     record.  The Trial Chamber considers that this appears is regrettable as

 3     it has greatly convoluted an increased the exercise of identifying

 4     underlying findings and analysis for the parties and the Appeals Chamber

 5     alike.

 6             I'll deal now with the aspect of common purpose within the

 7     framework of joint criminal enterprise.

 8             Mr. Stanisic under his third ground of appeal in part, and

 9     Mr. Zupljanin under his first ground of appeal in part, submit that the

10     Trial Chamber erred in law in defining the common criminal purpose of the

11     joint criminal enterprise; in particular, by conflating the legitimate

12     political goal for Serbs to live in one state with the criminal objective

13     of the joint criminal enterprise.

14             The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber clearly

15     determined that there existed a common purpose amounting to or involving

16     the commission of crimes provided for in the Statute of the Tribunal.

17     The appellants have thus failed to demonstrated that the Trial Chamber

18     erred in defining the common criminal purpose of the joint criminal

19     enterprise.  And so Mr. Stanisic' third ground of appeal in part, and

20     Mr. Zupljanin's first ground of appeal in part, are therefore dismissed.

21             I'm going to deal briefly with the aspect of membership in the

22     joint criminal enterprise.

23             Mr. Stanisic in his second ground of appeal and Mr. Zupljanin in

24     his first ground of appeal in part, raise several challenges to the Trial

25     Chamber's findings in relation to the membership of the joint criminal


Page 261

 1     enterprise.  In particular, Mr. Stanisic submits that the Trial Chamber

 2     erroneously equated being part of the Bosnian Serb leadership with

 3     membership of the JCE.  The Appeals Chamber finds that there is

 4     absolutely no basis for this argument and that the appellants have failed

 5     to show that the Trial Chamber erred in its findings in relation to the

 6     membership of the JCE.  The Appeals Chamber thus dismisses Mr. Stanisic's

 7     second ground of appeal in its entirety and Mr. Zupljanin's first ground

 8     of appeal in part.

 9             I now turn to Mr. Stanisic's ground of appeal relating to his

10     participation in the joint criminal enterprise.

11             Under his seventh ground of appeal, Mr. Stanisic submits that the

12     Trial Chamber erred in law and in fact by not according full probative

13     value to his voluntary interview with the Prosecution conducted between

14     the 16th and 21st of July 2007 and by failing to "grasp the trust of the

15     information provided."

16             The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Stanisic has failed to

17     demonstrate that the Trial Chamber ventured outside the scope of its

18     discretion in weighing and assessing the evidence in the light of the

19     entire trial record, and that therefore it erred in its assessment of the

20     interview.

21             Accordingly, Mr. Stanisic's seventh ground of appeal is being

22     dismissed.

23             Under his first and fifth ground of appeal in part, Mr. Stanisic

24     submits that the Trial Chamber erred in law by failing to set out and

25     apply the correct legal standard for contribution to a joint criminal


Page 262

 1     enterprise through failure to act and that consequently it erred by

 2     finding that he contributed to the JCE.

 3             The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber applied the

 4     correct legal standard and dismisses Mr. Stanisic's first and fifth

 5     grounds of appeal in part.

 6             Under his first, fifth, and sixth grounds of appeal in part,

 7     Mr. Stanisic submits that the Trial Chamber erred by failing to provide a

 8     reasoned opinion when it failed to pronounce on whether the military or

 9     civilian authorities were responsible for the investigation and

10     prosecution of crimes against non-Serbs committed by policemen

11     resubordinated to the military.

12             The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Stanisic has not demonstrated

13     that the pronouncement on whether military or civilian authorities were

14     responsible for the investigation and prosecution of crimes committed by

15     resubordinated policemen is a factual finding that was essential to the

16     determination of his guilt, the lack of which would result in a failure

17     to provide a reasoned opinion.

18             The Appeals Chamber therefore dismisses Mr. Stanisic's first,

19     fifth, and sixth grounds of appeal in part.

20             Under his first and sixth grounds of appeal in part, Mr. Stanisic

21     argues that the Trial Chamber made no findings as to whether and how he

22     contributed to the JCE and whether his purported contribution was

23     significant, thereby failing to provide a reasoned opinion.  In his fifth

24     and sixth grounds of appeal in part, Mr. Stanisic further alleges

25     numerous factual errors in the Trial Chamber's assessment of his


Page 263

 1     contribution to the JCE.

 2             With respect to the latter, the Appeals Chamber first finds that

 3     the Trial Chamber erred by considering the appointments of

 4     Stevan Todorovic, chief of Bosanski Samac public security station, and

 5     Krsto Savic, chief of the Trebinje CSB, as Mr. Stanisic's direct

 6     appointments of JCE members to the Republika Srpska MUP.

 7             Second, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber erred by

 8     concluding that Mr. Stanisic failed to take decisive action with respect

 9     to the Luka detention camp.  The Appeals Chamber dismisses the remainder

10     of his arguments alleging factual errors in the Trial Chamber's

11     assessment of his contribution of the JCE.

12             With regard to the alleged failure to provide a reasoned opinion,

13     the Appeals Chamber agrees with Mr. Stanisic.  It finds that the Trial

14     Chamber's failure to enter express findings as to whether and how

15     Mr. Stanisic's acts and conduct furthered the JCE and whether his

16     contribution was significant constitutes a failure to provide a reasoned

17     opinion.  Therefore, the Trial Chamber committed an error of law.  This

18     error allows the Appeals Chamber to assess the Trial Chamber's findings

19     and relevant evidence concerning Mr. Stanisic's acts and conduct to

20     determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded beyond

21     reasonable doubt that he significantly contributed to the JCE.

22             For reasons set out in the judgement, the Appeals Chamber

23     concludes that the Trial Chamber's findings - with the exception of

24     overturned findings referenced above - as well as the evidence relied

25     upon supports a finding that a reasonable trier of fact could have


Page 264

 1     concluded beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanisic significantly

 2     contributed to the JCE.

 3             On the basis of this foregoing, the Appeals Chamber dismisses

 4     Mr. Stanisic's first, fifth, and sixth grounds of appeal in part.  I will

 5     address the Appeals Chamber's findings on the impact of the factual

 6     errors on Mr. Stanisic's sentence later in this summary.

 7             Under his first and third grounds of appeal in part and fourth

 8     ground of appeal, Mr. Stanisic submits that the Trial Chamber erred in

 9     finding that he possessed the requisite intent for liability under the

10     first category of joint criminal enterprise and raises several legal and

11     factual challenges in this regard, including a challenge as to whether

12     the Trial Chamber provided a reasoned opinion.

13             With respect to the alleged error by failing to provide a

14     reasoned opinion, the Appeals Chamber regrettably notes again the Trial

15     Chamber's approach not to provide cross-references to earlier findings or

16     citations to the evidence on the record.  Moreover, it notes that with

17     respect to a number of factors on which it relied to conclude that

18     Mr. Stanisic possessed the requisite intent, the Trial Chamber adopted

19     vague, generic, and nondescript terms to refer to factual findings in

20     other sections of the trial judgement.

21             This approach is problematic and as already stated it has

22     complicated the Appeals Chamber's review of the Trial Chamber's

23     reasoning.  Nonetheless, the Appeals Chamber considers that through a

24     careful and thorough examination of the Trial Judgement, the

25     Trial Chamber's reasoning is discernible.  Therefore, the Appeals Chamber


Page 265

 1     concludes that ultimately the Trial Chamber did not fail to provide a

 2     reasoned opinion for concluding that he possessed the requisite intent

 3     and therefore dismisses Mr. Stanisic's arguments in this regard.

 4             The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber committed two

 5     distinct factual errors in assessing Mr. Stanisic's knowledge of crimes.

 6     Namely, first, the Trial Chamber erred by finding on the basis of the

 7     communications log-book of the Republika Srpska MUP headquarters and the

 8     Sarajevo CSB from 22nd April 1992 to 2nd January 1993 that Mr. Stanisic

 9     was "regularly informed through 1992 about crimes."

10             Second, the Trial Chamber erred in finding that on

11     18th April 1992, he was informed that a certain Zoka had arrested Muslims

12     in Sokolac.  In addition, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial

13     Chamber erred, in fact, in finding that Mr. Stanisic was a member of the

14     Bosnian Serb Assembly when assessing his intent.  Mr. Stanisic's

15     remaining arguments with respect to his intent are dismissed.

16             On the basis of the remaining upheld findings of the Trial

17     Chamber, the Appeals Chamber finds that the aforementioned errors do not,

18     however, impact the Trial Chamber's conclusion on Mr. Stanisic's intent.

19     The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that Mr. Stanisic has failed to

20     demonstrate that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that he possessed the

21     requisite intent for the first category of joint criminal enterprise

22     liability throughout the indictment period, namely, from at least

23     1st April 1992 until 31st December 1992.

24             For these reasons, the Appeals Chamber dismisses Mr. Stanisic's

25     first and third ground of appeal in part and his fourth ground of appeal


Page 266

 1     in its entirety.

 2             I now move to Mr. Stanisic's challenges concerning his conviction

 3     pursuant to the third category of JCE, in particular, his first ground of

 4     appeal in part and his eighth to eleventh grounds of appeal.

 5             In his eighth ground of appeal, Mr. Stanisic submits that the

 6     Trial Chamber erred in law by entering convictions for the specific

 7     intent crime of persecutions as a crime against humanity pursuant to the

 8     third category of joint criminal enterprise.

 9             The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Stanisic has failed to show

10     that cogent reasons exist to depart from its well-established case law

11     allowing for such convictions.  It dismissed Mr. Stanisic's eighth ground

12     of appeal.

13             In his first ground of appeal in part and his ninth ground of

14     appeal, Mr. Stanisic argues that the Trial Chamber failed to make the

15     required findings on the subjective element of the third category of JCE

16     in relation to the following crimes:  First, murder, as a crimes against

17     humanity and as a violations of the laws or customs of war; second,

18     torture as a crime against humanity and as a violations of the laws or

19     customs of war; third, cruel treatment as violations of the laws or

20     customs of war; and lastly, inhumane acts as a crime against humanity.

21             The Appeals Chamber is of the view that the Trial Chamber made

22     the required findings.  Therefore, Mr. Stanisic's first ground of appeal

23     in part and ninth ground of appeal in its entirety are being dismissed.

24             In his first ground of appeal in part and his tenth and eleventh

25     ground of appeal, Mr. Stanisic further alleges several errors with


Page 267

 1     respect to, first, whether his JCE III crimes were natural and

 2     foreseeable consequences of the joint criminal enterprise; second,

 3     whether his JCE III crimes were foreseeable to him, including whether the

 4     Trial Chamber provided a reasoned opinion for its conclusion in this

 5     regard; and, third, whether he willingly took the risk that they might be

 6     committed.

 7             The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Stanisic has failed to show an

 8     error in the Trial Chamber's findings.  As such, the Appeals Chamber

 9     dismisses his first ground of appeal in part and his tenth and eleventh

10     grounds of appeal in their entirety.

11             I am now going to turn to Mr. Zupljanin's ground of appeal

12     relating to his participation in the joint criminal enterprise.

13             I will first address Mr. Zupljanin's first ground of appeal in

14     part, challenging the Trial Chamber's findings in relation to his

15     responsibility pursuant to the first category of joint criminal

16     enterprise.

17             Mr. Zupljanin alleges legal and factual errors in relation to the

18     Trial Chamber's reliance on his failures to act, in particular his

19     failure to launch criminal investigations, to discipline his

20     subordinates, and to protect the non-Serb population, in concluding that

21     he significantly contributed to the joint criminal enterprise and that he

22     possessed the intent to further this JCE.

23             The Appeals Chamber rejects Mr. Zupljanin's argument that the

24     Trial Chamber erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal standard

25     when it considered instances of his failure to act to determine whether


Page 268

 1     he contributed to the JCE and had the requisite intent.  In addition, the

 2     Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Zupljanin has not demonstrated that the

 3     Trial Chamber erred by failing to make findings that he had sufficient

 4     control or authority over the police as a result of declining to

 5     pronounce on issues of resubordination of the police to the military.

 6     The Appeals Chamber also dismisses Mr. Zupljanin's remaining arguments in

 7     relation to the Trial Chamber's findings on the aforementioned failures

 8     to act on his part.

 9             Consequently, the Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Zupljanin has

10     failed to demonstrate that the Trial Chamber erred in relying on these

11     failures to act to infer his contribution to the JCE and his intent.

12             Furthermore, Mr. Zupljanin's raises challenges in relation to the

13     Trial Chamber's findings on his knowledge of and role in the unlawful

14     arrests and detention of non-Serbs in the ARK municipalities.  The

15     Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Zupljanin has failed to demonstrate that

16     the Trial Chamber erred in concluding that the arrests and detentions of

17     non-Serbs in the ARK municipalities were unlawful and that the

18     Trial Chamber erred in relying on his knowledge of and role in the

19     unlawful arrests and detentions to establish his contribution to the

20     joint criminal enterprise and his intent.

21             Mr. Zupljanin also argues that the Trial Chamber erred in relying

22     on several of his other positive acts to conclude that he significantly

23     contributed to the joint criminal enterprise and/or that he had possessed

24     the requisite intent.

25             The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber erred in finding


Page 269

 1     that Mr. Zupljanin was present at the Serbian Democratic Party Main Board

 2     meeting at the Holiday Inn in Sarajevo on 14 February 1992, I'll be

 3     referring to this as the Holiday Inn meeting, and in relying on this

 4     factor when assessing his intent to further the joint criminal

 5     enterprise.  Mr. Zupljanin's remaining arguments concerning his other

 6     positive acts are dismissed.

 7             I now turn to Mr. Zupljanin's challenges to the Trial Chamber's

 8     overall approach in finding that he significantly contributed to the

 9     joint criminal enterprise.  The Appeals Chamber dismisses Mr. Zupljanin's

10     arguments in this respect.  Moreover, recalling that he has not shown any

11     error in relation to the Trial Chamber's reliance on the factors relevant

12     to his significant contribution, the Appeals Chamber finds that he has

13     not shown that no reasonable trier of fact could have found that he

14     significantly contributed to the joint criminal enterprise.

15             Mr. Zupljanin further raises challenges to the Trial Chamber's

16     overall approach in finding that he shared the requisite intent under the

17     first category of joint criminal enterprise.  The Appeals Chamber

18     dismisses Mr. Zupljanin's argument in this respect, and in particular

19     finds that he has failed to demonstrate that the Trial Chamber applied an

20     incorrect standard for the subjective element of the first category of

21     joint criminal enterprise.

22             Moreover, while the Appeals Chamber has found that the Trial

23     Chamber erred in relying on Mr. Zupljanin's purported attendance at the

24     Holiday Inn meeting, he has failed to show that the Trial Chamber's

25     conclusion that he possessed the requisite intent during the indictment


Page 270

 1     period would not stand on the basis of the remaining factors.

 2             Consequently, the Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Zupljanin has

 3     failed to demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could have found

 4     that he possessed the requisite intent pursuant to the first category of

 5     joint criminal enterprise.  In the light of the foregoing, the Appeals

 6     Chamber dismisses Mr. Zupljanin's first ground of appeal in part.

 7             In his second ground of appeal, Mr. Zupljanin alleges various

 8     errors of law and fact concerning his convictions pursuant to the third

 9     category of joint criminal enterprise in general, including that the

10     Trial Chamber erred in failing to make specific findings that he

11     possessed the intent to participate in and further the common purpose of

12     the joint criminal enterprise by finding him liable pursuant to the third

13     category of JCE for crimes of "greater gravity," than the JCE I crimes.

14             He further raises arguments with respect to as whether his JCE

15     III crimes were natural and foreseeable consequences of the joint

16     criminal enterprise, and the Trial Chamber's findings that his JCE III

17     crimes were foreseeable to him and he willingly took the risk that they

18     might be committed.

19             For the reasons set out in its judgement, the Appeals Chamber is

20     not persuaded by Mr. Zupljanin's arguments and dismisses his second

21     ground of appeal in its entirety.

22             In his third ground of appeal, Mr. Zupljanin challenges his

23     conviction pursuant to the third category of joint criminal enterprise

24     for extermination as a crime against humanity.

25             The Appeals Chambers is not convinced by Mr. Zupljanin's


Page 271

 1     submission that the Trial Chamber erred in finding that the actus reus of

 2     extermination was met in relation to certain incidents.

 3             The Appeals Chamber further finds proprio motu that the Trial

 4     Chamber erred in law by failing to make a clear finding on whether the

 5     principal perpetrators of the incident in which 20 detainees died during

 6     their transportation from Betonirka detention camp in Sanski Most in

 7     Manjaca detention camp in Banja Luka municipality possessed the required

 8     mens rea of extermination.  This constitutes a failure to provide a

 9     reasoned opinion.

10             However, following an assessment of the relevant evidence and

11     factual findings, the Appeals Chamber concludes that a reasonable trier

12     of fact could have found beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators

13     acted with the required mens rea.  Therefore, the Trial Chamber's error

14     does not invalidate the Trial Judgement.

15             Mr. Zupljanin also argues that the Trial Chamber erred in finding

16     that extermination was foreseeable to him.  The Appeals Chamber agrees

17     that the Trial Chamber erred in relying on certain evidence to find that

18     Mr. Zupljanin knew on the Sanski Most incident.  However, it finds that

19     despite this error a reasonable trier of fact could have found that

20     Mr. Zupljanin was informed of the incident shortly after it occurred and

21     relied on this knowledge to find that extermination was foreseeable to

22     Mr. Zupljanin and that he willingly took and continued to take the risk

23     that extermination could be committed.  The Appeals Chamber rejects all

24     remaining arguments advanced by Mr. Zupljanin in this ground of appeal

25     and therefore dismisses his third ground of appeal in its entirety.


Page 272

 1             Mr. Zupljanin's conviction for ordering persecutions through

 2     plunder of property.  This is what I'm going to deal with now.

 3             Under his fifth ground of appeal, Mr. Zupljanin challenges the

 4     Trial Chamber's findings that he ordered persecutions to plunder of

 5     property through his order of 31st July 1992.  For reasons set out in its

 6     written judgement, the Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Zupljanin has

 7     failed to demonstrate an error on the part of the Trial Chamber and

 8     dismisses his fifth ground of appeal in its entirety.

 9             I'll deal now briefly with the aspect of cumulative convictions.

10             In its second ground of appeal, the Prosecution submits that the

11     Trial Chamber erred in law by failing to enter convictions for the crimes

12     of murder, torture, deportation, and other inhumane acts considering of

13     forcible transfer as crimes against humanity in addition to the

14     convictions it entered for the crime of persecutions as a crimes against

15     humanity through the same underlying acts.

16             Recalling the well-established jurisprudence that convictions for

17     the crime of persecutions and other crimes against humanity based on the

18     same conduct are permissibly cumulative, the Appeals Chamber finds that

19     the Trial Chamber has committed an error of law when it failed to enter

20     convictions for the crimes of murder, torture, deportation, and other

21     inhumane acts as crimes against humanity.  Accordingly, the Appeals

22     Chamber grants the Prosecution's second ground of appeal.  However, for

23     reasons you will find set out in the judgement, the Appeals Chamber

24     declines to enter new convictions on appeal.

25             I now come to the crucial part of this summarised judgement.  I'm


Page 273

 1     turning to sentencing.

 2             The appellants and the Prosecution have each appealed the

 3     sentences of 22 years of imprisonment imposed by the Trial Chamber.

 4             Mr. Stanisic, in his twelfth through fifteenth ground of appeal,

 5     and Mr. Zupljanin in his fourth ground of appeal, allege a number of

 6     errors of law and fact in relation to their sentence, including with

 7     respect to the Trial Chamber's consideration of the gravity of their

 8     conduct, aggravating factors, and mitigating factors.  They also allege

 9     that the Trial Chamber erred by double-counting certain factors.

10             The Prosecution submits, in its first ground of appeal, that the

11     Trial Chamber erred by imposing manifestly inadequate sentences on the

12     appellants.

13             The Appeals Chamber finds that it has not been shown that the

14     Trial Chamber committed a discernible error and therefore dismisses the

15     grounds of appeal raised by the appellants and the Prosecution in

16     relation to sentencing in their entirety.

17             I now come to disposition.

18             Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Zupljanin, will you please rise.

19             For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals Chamber:

20             Pursuant to Article 25 of the Statute and Rules 117 and 118 of

21     the Rules of Evidence and Procedure;

22             Noting the respective written submissions of the parties and the

23     arguments they presented at the appeal hearing on 16th December 2015;

24             Sitting in open session;

25             Dismisses Mico Stanisic's appeal in its entirety;


Page 274

 1             Dismisses Stojan Zupljanin's appeal in its entirety;

 2             Affirms Mico Stanisic configuration under Counts 1, 4, and 6;

 3             And Stojan Zupljanin's convictions under counts 1, 2, 4, and 6;

 4             Grants the Prosecution's second ground of appeal and finds that

 5     the Trial Chamber erred by finding that convictions for the crime of

 6     persecutions as a crime against humanity under Article 5 of the Statute

 7     are impermissibly cumulative with convictions for other crimes against

 8     humanity based on the same conduct and also erred by failing to enter

 9     convictions for Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin pursuant to

10     Article 7(1) of the Statute under counts 3, 5, 9 and 10, but declines to

11     enters new convictions against Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin on

12     appeal under these counts;

13             Dismisses the Prosecution's appeal in all other respects;

14             Affirms the sentences of 22 years of imprisonment imposed by the

15     Trial Chamber against Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin, respectively,

16     subject to credit being given under Rule 101(C) of the Rules for the

17     periods that they already spent in detention;

18             Rules that this judgement shall be enforced immediately pursuant

19     to Rule 118 of the Rules of Evidence and Procedure of this Tribunal; and

20             Orders, in accordance with the Rule 103(C) and Rule 107 of the

21     Rules, that Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin are to remain in the

22     custody of the Tribunal pending the finalisation of arrangements for

23     their transfer to the state where their sentence will be served.

24             Judge Daqun Liu appends a declaration.

25             Judge Koffi Kumelio Afande appends a separate opinion.


Page 275

 1             Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Zupljanin, you may be seated.

 2             That brings me to the end.  Before adjourning, I would like to

 3     express my sincere thanks to everyone in this courtroom present today and

 4     in the past during the hearing that we have had, and also I would like to

 5     thank those outside this courtroom who constitute quite a group for all

 6     the assistance that they have provided during these proceedings and in

 7     this case.  I'd like to thank the interpreters, I'd like to thank the

 8     recorder, the Registrar, the entire staff.

 9             Most of all, I would like to thank you two groups of persons, in

10     particular.  One is the team that assisted us, the Judges, in preparing

11     this judgement.  They have all worked hard, rounds the clock, many a time

12     seven days a week, and I would like to commend them publicly.  And I

13     would also like to thank my esteemed colleagues sitting with me today for

14     their complete co-operation in a case which was conducted at quite a

15     speed when everyone is really busy with several other matters in this

16     Tribunal.  I thank you for your co-operation, because without it we would

17     not be here today.

18             So I'll now conclude this hearing.  The Appeals Chamber stands

19     adjourned.

20             But before we leave the courtroom, may I remind you,

21     Madam Registrar, we spoke on this outside before we entered the

22     courtroom, you're now please asked to distribute a copy of the judgement

23     to the parties.  Thank you.

24                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.23 p.m.

25