¹ Trial Chamber Decision on the Accused's Second Motion for Inspection and Disclosure: Immunity Issue, ICTY-2008-IT-95-5/18-PT (17 December 2008) <http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tdec/en/081217.pdf> [hereinafter Decision].

² ibid para 25.

³ Prosecutions Second Amended Indictment, ICTY-2009-IT-95-5/18-PT (18 February 2009) <http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/ind/en/090218.pdf>

⁴ Official Submission concerning my first appearance and immunity agreement with the USA, ICTY-2008-IT-95-5-18I (6 August 2008) page 2 <http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/custom1/en/080805.pdf>

⁵ ibid.

⁶ Motion for Inspection and Disclosure: Immunity Issue, ICTY- 2008-IT-95/18-PT (23 September 2008) para. 1(a) <http://www.un.org/icty/karadzic/trialc/submisions/080923b.pdf>

⁷ ibid para 3. A later motion further refined this position, arguing that ‘whether such an agreement, if it exists, is attributable to the ICTY is a mixed issue of law and fact. It is a well established principle that an agreement is binding if made by a person with actual or apparent authority to do so. […] Courts have also employed a test of “effective control” in determining whether actions of a member state are attributable to the United nations and vice versa.’ Motion for Inspection and Disclosure: Holbrooke Agreement, ICTY-2008-IT-95/18-PT (5 November 2008) para 18–19 <http://www.un.org/icty/karadzic/trialc/submisions/081106.pdf>. For more on the alleged amnesty deal between Richard Holbrooke and Radovan Karadzic read Victor Peskin, International Justice in Rwanda and the Balkans: Virtual Trials and the Struggle for State Cooperation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008) 42–5.

⁸ Prosecutions Response to Karadzic's Submission Regarding Alleged Immunity Agreement, ICTY- 2008-IT-95/18-PT (20 August 2008) <http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/custom1/en/080820.pdf>[hereinafter Response]

⁹ Decision (n 1) para 27.

¹⁰ Response (n 12) para 4.

¹¹ ibid para. 2.

¹² Rules of Procedure and Evidence, IT/32/Rev.38 (revised 30 May 2006) <http://www.un.org/icty/legaldoc-e/basic/rpe/IT032Rev38e.pdf>[hereinafter Rules].

¹³ Decision (n 1) para 8.

¹⁴ ibid para 12.

¹⁵ ibid para 10, 16.

¹⁶ ibid para 20.

¹⁷ ibid para 4(b).

¹⁸ ibid para 20.

¹⁹ ibid para 27.

²⁰ ibid para 23.

²¹ ibid para 17.

²² ibid para 24.

²³ ibid para 21.

²⁴ ibid para 29.

²⁵ Decision (n 1) para 17 n 21 citing [sic] Charter of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg, art. 7; Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, art 6; Convention for the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, art IV; Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, art 7(2); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, art 6(2); Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, art 6(2); Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art 27; Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, art 7; ‘Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000’ (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), (Judgment) ICJ Rep 2002 para 61; Case No IT-95-5-D Prosecutor v Karadzic et al, Decision in the matter of a proposal for a formal request for deferral to the competence of the tribunal addressed to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in respect of Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Miéo Stanisic, 16 May 1995, paras 23–24; Case No IT-95-14-AR1086ÍS Prosecutor v Blaskic, Judgment on the request of the Republic of Croatia for review of the decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 October 1997, para 41; Case No IT-95-17/1-T Prosecutor v Furundzija, Judgement, 10 December 1998, para 140; Case No IT-99-37-PT Prosecutor v. Milosevic, Decision on Preliminary Motions, 8 November 2001, para 28.

²⁶ Blaskic (n 29) para 41.

²⁷ Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed, 1990) 82–83 (defining an amnesty as an act of forgiveness that a sovereign state grants to individuals who have committed offensive acts); Response (n 12) para 4. See also R C Slye, ‘Amnesty, Truth and Reconciliation: Reflections on the South African Amnesty Process’ in R I Rothberg & D Thompson (eds) Truth v Justice (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2000) 170–171 (describing amnesties as official acts protecting persons from liability and asserting that there are many acts and processes falling under amnesty label); Scharf, M P, ‘The Amnesty Exception to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court’ (1999) 32 Cornell Int’l L J 507, 508Google Scholar (stating that ‘[i]n the present context [of discussing amnesties with respect to international criminal law], amnesty refers to an act of sovereign power immunizing person from criminal prosecution forpast offenses’).

²⁸ Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Section 102(2) (1987).

²⁹ Charney, J I, ‘Universal International Law’ (1993) 87 Am J Int‘l L 529, 543–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Furundzija (n 29) para 155.

³¹ ibid.

³² ibid (n 172) citing 1994 the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 20 on Art 7 of the ICCPR (Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, UN Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev 1, 30 (1994)).

³³ Meisenberg, S, ‘Legality of Amnesties in International Humanitarian law—The Lomé Amnesty Decision of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’ (2004) 86 IRRC 838, 843Google Scholar.

³⁴ Motion for Inspection and Disclosure: Holbrooke Agreement, ICTY-2008-IT-95-5/18-PT (18 November 2008) para 18, <htt(p://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/custom1/en/081106.pdf para 18>

³⁵ Trumbull, C P IV, ‘Giving Amnesties a Second Chance’ (2007) 25 Berkeley J Int‘l L 283, 300Google Scholar. See also R Cryer, H Friman, D Robinson, E Wilmshurst, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure: Principles, Procedures, Institutions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007) 33.

³⁶ Motion (n 38) para 16.

³⁷ ICTY Statute (n 5) Article 9; Rules (n 16) Rule 11bis.

³⁸ In Prosecutor v Todovic the ICTY confirmed that ‘once cases have been referred by the International Tribunal to the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina pursuant to Rule 11bis of the Rules, the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“BiH Prosecutor”) may only initiate criminal prosecution in the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the basis of an indictment that has already been confirmed by the International Tribunal.’ Prosecutor v Savo Todovic (Decision on Rule 11bis Reference) ICTY-2006-IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1 (23 February 2006) para 15.

³⁹ Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (n 29).

⁴⁰ Peace Agreement between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone (‘Lomé Accord’), 7 July 1999 <www.sierra-leone.org/lomeaccord.html>. The UN Special Representative attached a disclaimer to Article 9 stating that the amnesty provision would not apply to violations of serious international crimes. However Professor Schabas has argued that the Security Council accepted Article 9 of the Lome Agreement, and the Secretary General's comments on amnesty was ‘little more than a perfunctory nod that criticized amnesty ‘for the record’ but went no further.' Schabas, W A ‘Amnesty, the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Special Court for Sierra Leone’ (2004) 11 UC Davis J Int‘l L & Policy 145, 149–150Google Scholar.

⁴¹ The Prosecutor v Morris Kallon and Brima Buzzy Kamara, Decision on Challenge to Jurisdiction: Lomé Accord Amnesty, SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E) and SCSL-2004-16-AR72(E), (Appeals Chamber, 13 March 2004) para 34 [hereinafter Lome Amnesty Decision].

⁴² ibid para 84. Sarah Williams has noted the following problems with the reasoning of the SCSL in Lome: ‘First, the Court's assertion that the offenses in Articles 2 to 4 of the Statute give rise to universal jurisdiction requires more detailed analysis than the Court provided. […] Second, the Court suggests that because it has jurisdiction in relation to international crimes that give rise touniversal jurisdiction for prosecution by the courts of third States, it too must be exercising universal jurisdiction. [ … The Court's ] analysis appears to confuse the specific obligation owed by States that are parties to a treaty with general obligations owed to the international community as a whole. ‘Amnesties in in International Law; The Experience of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’ (2005) 5 Hum Rts L Rev 271 287–291. For additional criticisms of Lome read Meisenberg (n 37) 845–850.

⁴³ Prosecutor v Allieu Kondewa, Decision on Lack of Jurisdiction/Abuse of Process: Amnesty Provided by the Lomé Accord, SCSL-04-14-T-128-7347 (Appeals Chamber, 25 May 2004) [hereinafter Kondewa Amnesty Decision].

⁴⁴ ibid para 10. His comments imply that the amnesty applies to courts constituted at the national and international level (ibid para 11).

⁴⁵ ibid para 49.

⁴⁶ Rome Statute (n 29).

⁴⁷ Scharf, M, ‘From the eXile Files: An Essay on Trading Justice for Peace’ (2006) 63 Wash & Lee L Rev 339, 367Google Scholar [hereinafter ‘eXile’] (quoting conversation with Judge Kirsch, President of the ICC); R Wedgwood, ‘The International Criminal Court: An American View’ (1999) 10 Eur J Int‘l L 93, 95 [hereinafter ‘An American View’] (explaining that ‘Rome skirted the question of amnesties.’).

⁴⁸ See eg, Murphy, R ‘Establishing a Precedent in Uganda: The Legitimacy of National Amnesties under the ICC’ (2006) 3(1) Eyes on the ICC 33, 55Google Scholar; Scharf, M P, ‘The Amnesty Exception to the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court’ (1999) 32 Cornell Int‘l L J 507, 522–25Google Scholar [hereinafter ‘The Amnesty Exception’) (discussing how articles 16,17, 20 and 53 allow amnesties); R J Goldstone & N Fritz, ‘In the Interests of Justice’ and Independent Referral: The ICC Prosecutor's Unprecedented Powers' 13 Leiden J Int‘l L 655, 656 (2000); Newman, D G, ‘The Rome Statute, Some Reservations Concerning Amnesties, a Distributive Problem’ (2005) 20 Am U Int‘l L Rev 293, 318–319Google Scholar; J Dugard, ‘Possible Conflicts of Jurisdiction with Truth Commissions in The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court–A Commentary’ 693, 698 in A Cassese, P Gaeta & J RWD Jones (eds) The Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court (OUP, Oxford, 2002) 702. Cp Hafner, G et al. , ‘A Response to the American View as Presented by Ruth Wedgwood’ (1999) 10 Eur J Int‘l L 108, 109–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar (1999); M Kourabas, ‘A Vienna Convention Interpretation of the “Interests of Justice Provision of the Rome Statute, the Legality of Domestic Amnesty Agreements, and the situation in Northern Uganda: A “Great Qualitative Step Forward,” or a Normative Retreat?’ (2007) 14 UC Davis J Int‘l L & Pol‘y 59.

⁴⁹ Rome Statute (n 29) art 53(1)(c).

⁵⁰ M Politi & G Nesi (eds) ‘Round Table: Prospects for the Functioning of the International Criminal Court’ in The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Challenge to Impunity (Ashgate, London, 2001) 300 (noting that Beatrice le Fraper du Hellen, a member of the French negotiating time, stated of Article 53, ‘[It is a] very important provision because it allows the Prosecutor to take into account the existence of a post crisis situation; that is to say, like the South African situation today, the Guatemala, El Salvador situations a few years ago … There were [sic] the Truth Commission in Guatemala, there is the Truth Commission in South Africa. And we have tried to give the Court the possibility to take into account the existence of such attempts at finding a solution.’). Additionally, one of the Interpretive Declarations made by Columbia upon Ratification of the Rome Statute bears out this flexible reading of Article 53. Paragraph 1 reads that ‘[n]one of the provisions of the Rome Statute concerning the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court prevent the Colombian State from granting amnesties … provided that they are granted in conformity with the Constitution and with the principles and norms of international law accepted by Colombia.’ Rome Statute (n 29) Declaration of Colombia, para 1 (Aug 5, 2002). No member states objected to Colombia's interpretive declarations (ibid at Objections).

⁵¹ ‘eXile’ (n 52) 369.

⁵² Rome Statute (n 29) art 16.

⁵³ Navqi, Y, ‘Amnesty for War Crimes: Defining the Limits of International Recognition’ (2003) 851 IRRC 583, 593Google Scholar. There is a less well developed argument that the Rome Statute recognizes immunizations through application of the ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Article 20. van der Vyver, J D, ‘Personal and Territorial Jurisdiction at the International Criminal Court’ (2000) 14 Emory Int‘l L Rev 1, 81–82Google Scholar (2000). The better reasoned position, however, seems to be that ‘Article 20's text makes clear that this principle blocks trial before the ICC only where there has been an actual trial by another court, which would not describe any typical case of amnesty.’ Newman (n 53) 318 (n 115).

⁵⁴ L Berat, ‘South Africa: Negotiating Change?’ in N Roht-Arriaza (ed) Impunity and Human Rights in International Law and Practice (OUP, Oxford, 1995) 271–72.

⁵⁵ A H Henkin, Honoring Human Rights (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2000) 102; Michael P. Scharf ‘Swapping Amnesty for Peace: Was there a Duty to Prosecute International Crimes in Haiti? (1996)31 Tex Int‘l LJ 1, 6–8.

⁵⁶ Statement of the President of the Security Council of 15 July 1993, reprinted in Resolutions and Decisions of the Security Council 1993, 48 SCOR, at 126, UN Doc S/26633 (1993).

⁵⁷ UNSC Res 841 (16 June 1993) UN Doc S/RES/841; UNSC Res 861 (27 August 1993) UN Doc S/RES/861.

⁵⁸ Cassel, D, ‘Lessons from the Americas: Guidelines for International Response to Amnesties for Atrocities’ (1996) 59 L & Contemp Prob 197, 225CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ UNGA ‘Report of the Secretary General on All Aspects of ONUSAL's Operations’ (1993) UN Doc. S/25812 addendum 3, annex, 2.

⁶⁰ S Jonas, Of Centaurs and Doves: Guatemala's Peace Process (2nd edn, Westview Press, 2000) 26.

⁶¹ Cassel (n 63) 223–24 n 74 (citing Declaracion Publica del Director de MINUGUA, Dec 20, 1996, para 5).

⁶² Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement of 10 July 1999 UN Doc. S/1999/815 para 9.2.

⁶³ F B Aboagye and A M S Bah ‘Liberia at a Crossroads: A Preliminary Look at the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMUL) and the Protection of Civilians’ (November 2004) Institute for Security Studies <http://www.iss.co.za/index.php?link_id=&slink_id=482&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3>

⁶⁴ Comprehensive Peace Agreement Between the Government of Liberia and the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) and the Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) (18 August 2003) art 34.

⁶⁵ Security Council Welcomes 18 August Liberia Peace Agreement, Reaffirms Readiness to Deploy UN Force by 1 October, Press Release, (27 August 2003) UN Doc. SC/7858 <www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7857.doc.htm>

⁶⁶ ‘eXile’ (n 52) 3.

⁶⁷ D Blair, ‘Bloody Past is Catching Up with Military Despot’ The Daily Telegraph (London, 2 July 2005) <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/liberia/1493237/Bloody-past-is-catching-up-with-Liberian-despot.html>

⁶⁸ Law to Amend the 2001 Law on the Establishment of Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia for the Prosecution of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea (27 October 2004) Article 40 <http://www.eccc.gov.kh/english/cabinet/law/5/Kram_and_KR_Law_amendments_27_Oct_2004_–_Eng.pdf>

⁶⁹ UNGA Res 57/228 ‘Khmer Rouge Trials’ Annex: Draft Agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia concerning the Prosecution under Cambodia Law of crimes committed during the period of Democratic Kampuchea, (27 May 2003) UN Doc A/RES/57/228 B Article 11(2).

⁷⁰ UNSC Res 1593 (31 March 2005) UN Doc SC/Res/1593 para 6.

⁷¹ Association et al v State of Netherlands and United Nations (Judgement in Incidental Proceedings) (7 October 2008) para 5.28. <http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspxsnelzoeken=true&searchtype=ljn&ljn=BD6796&u_ljn=BD6796>

⁷² In the Secretary General's August 2004 Report to the Security Council on the Rule of Law and Transitional Justice Kofi Annan urged that all future Security Council resolutions and mandates ‘reject any endorsement of amnesty for genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, including those relating to ethnic, gender and sexually based international crimes, [and] ensure that no such amnesty previously granted is a bar to prosecution before any United Nations-created or assisted court.’ UNGA ‘Report of the Secretary-General; The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies’ (2004) UN Doc. S/2004/616 at 21. But note that only two members of the Security Council spoke in favor of the Secretary General's recommendation, and the President's statement that was eventually approved by the Security Council made no reference to amnesties. Trumbull, Charles P IV ‘Giving Amnesties a Second Chance’ (2007) 25 Berkley L J 283, 292Google Scholar (n 48).

⁷³ Scharf, M P, ‘The Letter of the Law: The Scope of the International Legal Obligation to Prosecute Human Rights Crimes’ (1996) 59 L & Contemp Prob 4, 57Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Response (n 12) para 7 (n 9).

⁷⁵ M N Shaw, International Law (5th edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003) 429; H Lauterpacht, E Lauterpacht International Law: Being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht (CUP Archive, 1970) 133; ‘The Intertemporal Problem in Public International Law’ in 56 Ann de l‘Institut de Droit Int‘l 537 (1975); ILC, ‘Draft Articles on State Responsibility: Part 1, Articles 1–35’ (1999) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.574 art. 18. Cp R Higgins, ‘Some Observations on the Inter-temporal Rule in International Law’ in Theory of international law at the threshold of the 21st Century (TMC Asser, The Hague, 1996) 173, 174.

⁷⁶ ‘Report of the Secretary General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (3 May 1993) Un Doc. S/25704 para 34. <http://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_re808_1993_en.pdf>

⁷⁷ Charter of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg (n 29); Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (n 29); Convention for the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (n 29); Statute (n 5).

⁷⁸ Lomé Amnesty Decision (n 46) para 82.

⁷⁹ Decision (n 1) para 25.

⁸⁰ Decision (n 1) para 18.

⁸¹ The implication of the Court is two-fold: (1) that the amnesty is invalid because it conflicts with the central mandate and structural arrangement of the Court, and (2) that Mr. Holbrooke cannot bind the ICTY as the result of statutory prohibitions. The issue of when an individual state or person may bind the UNSC or an international court is too lengthy to take up in this comment, but would benefit from further scrutiny.

⁸² Resolution 827 (n 3).

⁸³ ICTY-2003-IT-97-24-T Prosecutor v Stakic Milomar (Judgment) (13 July 2003) para 891.

⁸⁴ R J Goldstone & S Day O‘Connor, For Humanity: Reflections of a War Crimes Investigator (Yale University Press New Haven, 2000) 132.

⁸⁵ ibid.

⁸⁶ R Kerr, The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: An Exercise in Law, Politics, and Diplomacy (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004) 178.

⁸⁷ ‘Statement by Justice Louise Arbour to the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’ (8 December 1997) in M2 PRESSWIRE, at 3 (LEXIS).

⁸⁸ M Bennouna, ‘Truth, Justice and Amnesty’ in A Cassese, L Chand Vohrah (eds) Man's Inhumanity to Man (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2003) 135.

⁸⁹ Kerr (n 91) 185.

⁹⁰ Rules (n 16) art 20(1) & 20(3).

⁹¹ ICTR-97-19 Prosecutor v Barayagwiza (Judgment) (3 November 1999) para 74.

⁹² Prosecutor v Dragan Nikolić (Decision on Interlocutory Appeal concerning Legality of Arrest) ICTY-IT-94-2-AR73 (5 June 2003) para 29–30.