II. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA DECISION ON THE ACCUSED'S SECOND MOTION FOR INSPECTION AND DISCLOSURE: IMMUNITY ISSUE TRIAL CHAMBER DECISION OF 17 DECEMBER 2008

2009 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 726-740
Author(s):  
Benjamin Brockman-Hawe
2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 664-667

On March 20, 2019, the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals set aside Radovan Karadžić's prior sentence of forty years and imposed a life sentence. Karadžić was convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws or customs of war in March 2016 by a Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and sentenced to forty years in prison. His crimes relate to war crimes he committed during the 1990s conflicts in the Balkans, in particular the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Serbs and the three-year long siege of Sarajevo. The Appeals Chamber reversed part of Karadžić's convictions related to the Overarching JCE and dismissed the rest of his appeal, while also dismissing most of the Prosecution's appeal, aside from the sentence. The Appeals Chamber judges found that the Trial Chamber “committed a discernible error and abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of only 40 years of imprisonment,” and consequently imposed a life sentence.


2002 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1344-1346

The accused has complained about publications in two newspapers. The first was published on the 7th of September, 2002 in the Haagsche Courant, a Dutch newspaper in The Hague, and the second on the 13th September, 2002 in the Kultura, a Bulgarian newspaper in Sofia, Bulgaria. Both publications resulted from interviews given by Mr. Michail Wladimiroff, one of the three amici curiae in this case.The publication in the Haagsche Courant was captioned: “Wladimiroff: Already Enough Evidence Against Milosevic.” Mr. Wladimiroff is reported as saying, “If this trial were only about Kosovo and one had to draw up the balance now, Milosevic would certainly be convicted. A link has been established between the army and the police, the warring parties in Kosovo and Milosevic himself.”Mr. Wladimiroff explained that he had been misquoted, and that what he had said was that “we have seen during the Prosecution case at least on the face of it, there is a link between the offences in Kosovo and the accused. That may not be for all events, but even if it were half of it, it is a relevant factor for the Trial Chamber when reaching a verdict.”


1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 461-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
David Turns

On 29 November 1996 Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“the ICTY”) handed down its sentence in the case of Dražen Erdemović. This was a decision of historie significance for a variety of reasons, the most obvious being that it was the first sentence passed by an international war crimes tribunals, applying international law, since the International Military Tribunals which sat at Nuremberg and Tokyo between 1945 and 1948; it was also the first time a truly international tribunal bas concluded the trial of a minor war criminal, as opposed to a senior military commander or political leader. In addition, it was the first sentence handed down by the ICTY, which has been plagued sincc its first days of operation by problems in securing evidence and witnesses, not to mention the presence of the accused. Now the ICTY has shown, in the face of widespread criticism and accusations of impotence, that it can actually perform the task assigned to it. The doubt about such a judgment is that the Erdemović case is not perhaps the best basis on which to assess the ICTY's performance, so singular were the accused's conduct and, indeed, the circumstances in which he found himself before the Tribunal. Essentially, had it not been for the accused's voluntary surrender and his extensive co-operation with the Office of the Prosecutor, and the co-operation of the judirial authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in transferring Erdemović to The Hague, the case would probably never have happened at all.


2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 663-668
Author(s):  
Nina H. B. Jørgensen

In its decision on assigned counsel's motion for withdrawal in the Milosevic case, the trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) observed “that assignment of counsel against the wishes of the accused is a developing area of the law both in national and international jurisdictions.” This area of law witnessed rapid development by international criminal tribunals in the latter half of 2004.


2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Elderfield

On November 16, 2012, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) reversed by majority the findings of a unanimous Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Gotovina et al. (Gotovina). In so doing, it acquitted two Croatian generals, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, on all counts of the indictment, including persecution and deportation as crimes against humanity, and four counts of violations of the laws or customs of war.


Author(s):  
van der Wilt Harmen

This commentary concerns a decision by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Simić case that addressed the question whether the Tribunal could issue binding orders to international organizations like SFOR (Stabilization Force). Following the Blaskić-precedent that decided on a similar issue in respect of states—and applying this precedent by analogy—the Chamber concluded that it was authorized to do so. The appearance and testimony of a SFOR-official was necessary in order to shed light on the alleged abduction of Mr Todorović prior to his surrender to the Tribunal. By summoning the witness to the court, the Chamber acknowledged that irregularities during pre-trial investigations might have procedural consequences. The commentary engages in a brief discussion of the case law of the Tribunal on the topic, noting that, while the Tribunal is not much concerned about state sovereignty, it takes the fundamental rights of accused seriously.


2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-103
Author(s):  
Åsa Rydberg

On 16 November 1999, during the Twenty-first Plenary Session of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Judges chose Judge Jorda as the new President of the ICTY. Judge Jorda took over the presidency from Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, who left the ICTY at the end of the first term of her presidency. A French national, President Jorda has been a Judge at the ICTY since January 1994. Since October 1995, he has been the Presiding Judge of Trial Chamber I of the ICTY.


2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 389-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina H.B. Jørgensen

This article focuses on two key aspects of the Keraterm case before the ICTY. The first is Duško Sikirica's acquittal of the crime of genocide. The Trial Chamber's construction of the phrase “destruction in part of a group” is critically examined and compared to the reasoning of a differently constituted Trial Chamber in the Krstić case. The second key aspect of the Keraterm case is the decision by all three defendants to enter into plea agreements with the Prosecutor at a relatively late stage in the trial. This article discusses the rules governing plea agreements, general sentencing factors and the extent to which guilty pleas have resulted in a pattern of lighter sentences in the jurisprudence of the Tribunals.


2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 641-665
Author(s):  
Ulf S. Lundqvist

This article analyses the requirements when the ICTY Appeals Chamber may overturn factual findings made by a Trial Chamber and may admit fresh evidence. The conclusion is that the Appeals Chamber should overturn factual findings only when strong reasons so indicate, since trial transcripts cannot provide the same information as did live impressions from the proceedings when the Trial Chamber reached its findings. Fresh evidence should be admitted exceptionally; otherwise the control (corrective) function of the ICTY Appeals Chamber could be weakened, endangering the division of tasks in the court organisation, the effective administration of justice and a final hearing within a reasonable time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document