No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: Prosecutor v. Šljivančanin
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- International Legal Documents
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011
References
Notes
* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia website (visited Apr. 4, 2011) http://www.icty.org/x/cases/mrksic/acjug/en/101208_review_judgement.pdf.
1 The ICTY and the ICTR share an Appeals Chamber. The only review decision to be granted by this Appeals Chamber was for a case before the ICTR. Barayagwiza v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-19-AR72, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Review or Reconsideration (Mar. 31, 2000).
2 Prosecutor v. Mrkšič et al., Case No. IT-95-13/1-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 715 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Sept. 27, 2007).
3 Id.
4 Id. 716.
5 Prosecutor v. Mrkšič & Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1- A, Appeals Judgment (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia May 5, 2009) (Vaz, J. & Pocar, J., dissenting).
6 Id. 413.
7 Id. 62.
8 Id. 63. But see id. 4 (Vaz, J., partially dissenting) (arguing that there was no clear evidence supporting this conclusion).
9 There have been past applications for similar review, but until this case, none had been granted at the ICTY. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-R, Decision on Motion for Review (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia July 30, 2002); Prosecutor v. Delić [Čelebić], Case No. IT-96-21- R-R119, Decision on Motion for Review (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Apr. 25, 2002); Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-R, Decision on Prosecutor’s Request for Review or Reconsideration (Public Redacted Version) (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Nov. 23, 2006); Naletilić a.k.a. ‘‘Tuta’’ v. Prosecutor, Case No. IT-98-34-R, Decision on Mladen Naletilić’s Request for Review (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Mar. 19, 2009).
10 See, e.g., Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-R, 22-23; Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-R, 24.
11 Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, U.N. Doc. S/25704, art. 26, U.N. Doc. S/Res/827.Add.1 (1993) [hereinafter Statute]; Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Rules 119-2, U.N. Doc. IT/32, Rev. 45 (2010).
12 Jean, Galbraith, ‘New Facts’ in ICTY and ICTR Review Proceedings, 21 Leiden J. Int’l L. 131, 143 (2008)Google Scholar.
13 Prosecutor v.Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Review Judgment, 6 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Dec. 8, 2010) [hereinafter Šljivančanin, Review Judgment]. 14 Prosecutor v.Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Decision with Respect to Veselin Šljivančanin’s Application for Review, 2 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia July 14, 2010) [hereinafterŠ ljivan?anin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Decision Granting Review].
15 Id. at 4.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 3.
20 Id. at 4.
21 See Galbraith, supra note 12, at 138.
22 See id. (discussing why this distinction is important).
23 Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Review Judgment, at 3.
24 In other analogous cases, the Chamber has held that the new information constituted ‘‘additional evidence’’ and therefore denied requests for review. Galbraith, supra note 12, at 143. In this case, the Chamber has seemingly returned to the reasoning it employed in Barayagwiza and Tadić. See id.
25 Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Decision Granting Review 2-3; see also Barayagwiza, Case No. ICTR-97-19- AR72, 65.
26 Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Decision Granting Review, at 3 (emphasis in the original).
27 Id. at 2-3.
28 Id. at 3.
29 Id. at 3-4; Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Review Judgment, 7.
30 Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-R.1, Review Judgment, 31.
31 Id. 32.
32 Id. 36; id. 4 (Pocar, J., partially dissenting).
33 Statute, supra note 11, art. 25(2); Mrkšič & Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Appeals Judgment, 2-11 (Pocar, J., partially dissenting).
34 Mrkšič Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Appeals Judgment 2-3 (Pocar, J., dissenting) (citing, inter alia, Prosecutor v. Galic´, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Appeals Judgment (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Nov. 30, 2006); Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR-96-3-A, Appeals Judgment (May 26, 2003); Prosecutor v. Martić, Case No. IT-95- 11-A, Appeals Judgment, 319 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia Oct. 8, 2008).
1 The Appeals Chamber recalls that it has granted the Application in part, hearing the testimony of Miodrag Panić (‘‘Panić’’) and granting review of the Appeal Judgement in Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšič and Veselin Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95- 13/1-A, Judgement, 5 May 2009 (‘‘Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement’’). However, the Appeals Chamber has not yet addressed Šljivančanin’s request that one of his convictions be quashed. See Application, para. 39; Scheduling Order for Hearing Regarding Veselin Šljivančanin’s Application for Review, 20 April 2010 (‘‘Pre-Review Scheduling Order’’), pp. 1-2; Decision with Respect to Veselin Šljivančanin’s Application for Review, 14 July 2010 (‘‘Decision Granting Review’’), p. 4; Pre-Review Hearing, AT. 3 June 2010.
2 Prosecution Response to Šljivančanin’s Application for Review, 9 March 2010 (confidential). A public redacted version was filed on the same day.
3 Reply to Prosecution Response to Šljivanc?anin’s Application for Review, 29 March 2010.
4 See Decision on Admission of Evidence and Scheduling Order, 21 September 2010 (‘‘Scheduling Order’’), p. 3; Order Clarifying Schedule of Written Submissions Following the Review Hearing, 13 October 2010 (‘‘Clarifying Order’’), p. 1.
5 Prosecution Response to Šljivančanin’s Written Submission, 26 October 2010 (confidential). A public redacted version was filed on 27 October 2010 (‘‘Public Second Response’’).
6 Reply on Behalf of Veselin Šljivančanin to Prosecution Response, 1 November 2010 (confidential) (‘‘Confidential Second Reply’’). Apublic redacted version was filed on 3 November 2010 (‘‘Public Second Reply’’).
7 Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 2.
8 Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšič et al., Case No. IT-95-13/1-T, Judgement, 27 September 2007 (‘‘Mrkšič et al. Trial Judgement’’), para. .
9 Id., para. 2.
10 Id., para. 400.
11 Id., para. 293.
12 Id., para. 294.
13 Id., para. 9.
14 Id., paras 667-670, 674, 715-716.
15 Id., paras 674, 715.
16 Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, p. 169. See also id., para. 211.
17 Id., para. 103, p. 169.
18 Id., p. 170.
19 Id., para. 62. See also id., para. 61.
20 Id., para. 62, citing Mrkšič et at. Trial Judgement, para. 672.
21 See id., para. 63.
22 Mrkšič et al. Trial Judgement, paras 62, 70.
23 Application, paras 2-3, 5, 9-10, 30-38, Attachment A.
24 Id., para. 39.
25 See generally Pre-Review Scheduling Order, pp. 1-2; Pre- Review Hearing, AT. 3 June 2010.
26 Pre-Review Hearing, AT. 3 June 2010, pp. 26-32; 63-64.
27 Id., pp. 64-65.
28 Id., p. 56.
29 Id., pp. 71-72.
30 Id., pp. 11-18.
31 Id., p. 66.
32 Id., pp. 72-74.
33 See Decision Granting Review, p. 4.
34 Id., p. 3.
35 Id., pp. 3-4. A
36 Order Regarding Prosecution’s Motion for Extension of Time, 23 July 2010, p. 2.
37 Scheduling Order, p. 2.
38 Id.; Decision Addressing Various Prosecution Submissions, 7 October 2010, p. 3.
39 See Scheduling Order, p. 2; Review Exhibit RP7, ‘‘Report on testimony Miodrag PANIĆ ‘Pre-Review Hearing 03 June 2010’’’, 27 August 2010 (BCS translation and English original both filed on 29 September 2010) (‘‘Theunens Report’’).
40 Scheduling Order, pp. 2-3; Review Hearing, AT. 12 October 2010.
41 Review Hearing, AT. 12 October 2010, pp. 165-169, 195- 197, 205-207. See also Theunens Report, pp. 3-7.
42 Theunens Report, p. 6; Review Hearing, AT. 12 October 2010, pp. 212-213.
43 See Mrkšič et al. Trial Judgement, para. 285.
44 Review Hearing, AT. 12 October 2010, p. 194.
45 Id., pp. 150-154, 179-181. See also Theunens Report, pp. 17, 21-25.
46 See Review Hearing, AT. 12 October 2010, pp. 163-165. See also Theunens Report, pp. 8-10; Mrkšič et al. Trial Judgement, paras 74, 275.
47 Review Hearing, AT. 12 October 2010, pp. 150-155. See also Theunens Report, pp. 14-17; Trial Exhibit 368, ‘‘Regular Combat Report No. 467-1’’, 21 November 1991 (English translation and BCS original both filed on 26 April 2006).
48 See Clarifying Order, p. 1. See also Additional Submission; Public Second Response; Public Second Reply.
49 Rule 120 of the Rules.
50 Additional Submission, para. 2.
51 Id., paras 4-5, 9-10, 43, 50.
52 Id., paras 21-22.
53 Id., para. 17.
54 See id., para. 19.
55 Id., paras 21-22.
56 Id., paras 27-28.
57 Id., para. 29.
58 Id., paras 24-26, 30.
59 Id., para. 31.
60 See id., paras 32-39. See also Mrkšič et al. Trial Judgement, para. 285.
61 Additional Submission, para. 40.
62 Public Second Response, paras 1-3.
63 Id., paras 14-18.
64 Id., paras 14, 18-19.
65 See, e.g., id., para. 22.
66 Id., paras 23-29.
67 See id., para. 30. See also Mrkšič et al. Trial Judgement, para. 285.
68 Public Second Response, para. 30.
69 See id., paras 31-34.
70 Id., p. 10 (emphasis omitted). See also id., paras 30-35.
71 Id., para. 5.
72 Id., paras 7-8.
73 See id., para. 9, citing Mrkšič et al. Trial Judgement, para. 297.
74 Id., para. 10.
75 See id., paras 11-13. See also Review Hearing, AT. 12 October 2010, pp. 229-232.
76 Public Second Reply, para. 1. See also id., paras 6-10.
77 Id., paras 23-24.
78 Id., paras 7-9, 18-19, 27-28.
79 Id., para. 20.
80 Id., paras 12, 25, fn. 10.
81 Id., para. 17. See also id., para. 26.
82 See supra, paras 3-4.
83 Decision Granting Review, p. 4.
84 See supra, para. 17.
85 Pre-Review Hearing, AT. 3 June 2010, pp. 26-28.
86 Public Second Response, para. 16 and references cited therein.
87 See, e.g., Pre-Review Hearing, AT. 3 June 2010, pp. 46-47.
88 Public Second Response, para. 16.
89 See Panić Trial Testimony, T. 13 November 2006, p. 14551 (‘‘Q. Did you know, since you were later that day you were at the command post in Negoslavci that anyone on that day at all addressed Šljivančanin [sic] about the civilian authorities or any threats posed to those people there, those persons there on that day?’’).
90 See Public Second Response, paras 18-19.
91 See supra, para. 19.
92 Mrkšič et al. Trial Judgement, para. 297.
93 See Mrkšič andŠljivančanin Appeal Judgement, paras 61-63.
94 Cf. Public Second Response, paras 7,30-35; Public Second Reply para. 12; Confidential Second Reply, para. 16.
95 See Public Second Response, paras 5-8.
96 The Appeals Chamber notes that the Prosecution agrees that Pani?’s testimony concerning the Conversation is consistent with his previous denials of having been aware of the Withdrawal Order at the time. See Review Hearing, AT. 12 October 2010, p. 228.
97 See supra, para. 20.
98 See Pre-Review Hearing, AT. 3 June 2010, p. 22; Public Second Response, para. 13.
99 See Pre-Review Hearing, AT. 3 June 2010, pp. 72-74.
100 See supra, para. 18.
101 Mrkšič et al. Trial Judgement, para. 285. The Appeals Chamber observes that Theunens testified that in the evidence he reviewed he saw no example of a ‘‘violation of the principle of command and control’’, Review Hearing, AT. 12 October 2010, p. 194, but notes that he admitted that he ‘‘did not analyse the [Mrkšič et at. Trial Judgement]’’, id., p. 193.
102 See supra, para. 18.
103 See supra, para. 26.
104 See supra, para. 27.
105 See supra, para. 24.
106 The Appeals Chamber notes that while it can discern no self-interested motive for Panić to participate in review proceedings, once he decided to participate, he would certainly have had a motive to repeat any self-serving testimony he had already given before the Trial Chamber in order to protect himself from accusations of perjury and possible national prosecutions. The Appeals Chamber considers that the incentive to repeat any such untruths would, however, be limited to issues regarding which he had already testified before the Trial Chamber, which by definition do not include his new evidence regarding the Conversation. In this context, the Appeals Chamber recalls that it is not unreasonable for a trier of fact to accept some but reject other parts of a witness’s testimony. Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj et al., Case No. IT-04-84-A, Judgement, 19 July 2010, para. 237; Prosecutor v. Mom?ilo Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Judgement, 17 March 2009, para. 150.
107 Decision Granting Review, p. 4. 108 See Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 74. The Appeals Chamber observes that this conclusion of the Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement is not at issue in these review proceedings.
109 Id., para. 63. See also id., para. 75.
110 Id., para. 103, p. 169.
111 In light of this determination, the Appeals Chamber will not entertain Šljivančanin’s request to call his own military expert. See Public Second Reply, para. 32.
112 Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, paras 413, 417.
113 Id., para. 412.
114 Id., para. 413.
115 Id., para. 419.
116 Id., p. 170.
117 Additional Submission, para. 47.
118 Id., para. 48.
119 Id., para. 49.
120 Public Second Response, para. 38.
121 Id.
1 Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 72, quoting , inter alia, ICRC Commentaries to Geneva Convention III, Article 12, p. 128.
2 Id., para. 73.
3 Id., para. 74.
4 See Review Judgement, para. 29, citing Mrkšič et al. Trial Judgement, para. 285.
1 Arrêt, 5 mai 2009 (“Arrêt”).
2 Le Procureur c/Mile Mrkšič et consorts, IT-95-13/1-T, Jugement, 27 septembre 2007 (“ Jugement “), par. 673.
3 Arrêt, par. 74.
4 Jugement, par. 673.
1 Review Judgement, para. 37.
2 Scheduling Order for Hearing Regarding Veselin Šljivančanin’s Application for Review, 20 April 2010, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pocar, pp. 3-4, paras 1-8.
3 Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšlič and Veselin Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, Judgement, 5 May 2009 (‘‘Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement’’), Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pocar, pp. 171-177, paras 1-13. See in particular, ibid., paras 1-2, 12. However, I recall my agreement with the legal principles articulated in paragraphs 72-74 of the Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, which are in accordance with those already articulated by the Appeals Chamber, in respect to any protected person, in Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Judgement, 29 July 2004, paras 668, 670.
4 Review Judgement, para. 37.
5 Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšič et al., Case No. IT-95-13/1-T, Judgement, 27 September 2007, para. 716.
6 Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pocar, p. 171, para. 1, referring to Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, para. 4l3.
7 Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pocar, p. 171, para. 1, referring to Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, paras 418-419.
8 Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Judgement, 30 November 2006, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pocar, p. 187, para. 2.
9 Laurent Semanza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-97-20- A, Judgement, 20 May 2005, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pocar, pp. 131-133, paras 1-4.
10 Ceorges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-3-A, Judgement, 26 May 2003, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pocar, pp. 1-4.
11 Mrkšič and Šljivančanin Appeal Judgement, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pocar, pp. 171-177, paras 1-13.
12 Written Submission on Behalf of Veselin Šljivančanin, 19 October 2010, paras 49-50.
13 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. l71, entered into force 23 March 1976.