Article contents
Prosecutor V. Karadžić (ICTY)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Extract
On July 11, 2013, in the case against Radovan Karadžić, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) held that the evidence presented against the accused, if taken at its highest, could lead a reasonable trier of fact to find that genocide against Bosnian Muslim and/or Bosnian Croat groups had occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992. This decision overturned an earlier ruling by Trial Chamber III on the accused’s motion for acquittal pursuant to Rule 98bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which found that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for genocide in the seven municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina.2
- Type
- International Legal Documents
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013
References
* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Web site (visited November 11, 2013), http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/acjug/en/130711_judgement_rule98bis.pdf.
1 Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-AR98bis.1, Judgment, ¶ 37 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia July 11, 2013) [hereinafter Appeals Chamber Judgment].
2 Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-I, Transcript, 28731 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia June 28, 2012), http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/trans/en/120628 ED.htm.
3 Id. at 28774.
4 Id. at 28765.
5 Application of the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb. & Montenegro) 2007 I.C.J. 47, ¶ 471 (Feb. 26).
6 Id. ¶ 277.
7 Id.
8 Prosecutor v. Milošević, Case No. IT-02-54-T, Decision on Motion for Judgement of Acquittal, ¶ 246 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia June 15, 2004) (emphasis added).
9 For example, the Institute for Research of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law in Sarajevo published the Rule 98bis decision against Milošević, accompanied by introductory notes, in a volume entitled “Milošević Guilty of Genocide” and later published the decision under the subtitle of “Genocide in Bosnia Proven to Milošević.” Muharem Kreso, Robert J. Donia & Smail Čekić, Milošević Guilty of Genocide: Decision on Motion of the Hague Tribunal of 16 June 2004 (2007); Inst. for Research of Crimes Against Humanity and Int’l Law in Sarajevo, The Hague Tribunal Interim Judgment of 16 June 2004: Genocide in Bosnia Proven to Milošević (2007).
10 Marko, Milanovic, Karadzic Trial Chamber FindsNoGenocide in Bosnia but for Srebrenica , EJIL Talk!, (June 28, 2012)Google Scholar, http://www.ejiltalk.org/karadzic-trial-chamber-finds-nogenocide-in-bosnia-but-for-srebrenica/.
11 Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-I, Prosecution Notice of Appeal of Judgement of Acquittal under Rule 98bis (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia July 11, 2012).
12 Appeals Chamber Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 17.
13 Id. ¶ 52.
14 Id. ¶ 104.
15 Id. ¶¶ 38, 50, 101.
16 Id.
17 Id. ¶ 50.
18 Id. ¶¶ 97-101.
19 Id. ¶ 97.
20 Id. ¶¶ 98-101.
21 Id. ¶¶ 107-108.
22 Id. ¶ 98.
1 For ease of reference, two annexes are appended: Annex A – Procedural History and Annex B – Cited Materials and Defined Terms.
2 Indictment, paras 38-40.
3 Specifically, the Indictment alleges that Karadžić acted in concert with members of a JCE, including: Momčilo Krajišnik, Ratko Mladić, Slobodan Milošević, Biljana Plavšić, Nikola Koljević, Mićo Stanišić, Momčilo Mandić, Jovica Stanišić, Franko Simatović, Željko Ražnatović (aka “Arkan”) and Vojislav Šešelj. Indictment, para. 11. Other alleged members of the JCE include: members of the Bosnian Serb leadership; members of SDS and Bosnian Serb government bodies at the republic, regional, municipal, and local levels, including Crisis Staffs, War Presidencies, and War Commissions; commanders, assistant commanders, senior officers, and chiefs of units of the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Yugoslav People’s Army, the Yugoslav Army, the army of the Serbian Republic of BiH (later the army of the Republika Srpska), the Bosnian Serb Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Bosnian Serb Territorial Defence at the republic, regional, municipal and local levels; and leaders of Serbian and Bosnian Serb paramilitary forces and volunteer units. Indictment, para. 12.
4 Indictment, paras 4, 9-14, 37-40.
5 Indictment, para. 40.
6 Indictment, paras 36-40.
7 T. 11 June 2012 pp. 28569-28626.
8 T. 13 June 2012 pp. 28628-28728.
9 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28769-28770 (emphasis added). See also T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28764-28768.
10 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28774.
11 Notice of Appeal, paras 3-24; Appeal Brief, paras 4, 15-116.
12 Response, paras 1, 27-312, 322. Karadžić also makes several ancillary applications, including a request that the Appeals Chamber conduct an oral hearing on the Prosecution’s appeal. See Response, paras 313-319. The Appeals Chamber addressed these requests in the Scheduling Order issued on 22 March 2013.
13 See T. 17 April 2013 pp. 4-67.
14 Response, para. 20.
15 Response, para. 23, citing Halilović Appeal Judgement, para. 11. See also Response, paras 21-22.
16 Response, para. 24.
17 Reply, para. 20. See also Reply, n. 70 (arguing that the passage from the Halilović Appeal Judgement cited in the Response refers to an acquittal after a full trial and is not relevant to a Rule 98 bis acquittal).
18 Reply, para. 20, citing Jelisić Appeal Judgement, paras 54-57.
19 Reply, para. 20 (emphasis removed).
20 Decision on Motion to Strike Prosecution’s Brief, 9 November 2012, para. 8. See generally Rule 98 bis of the Rules.
21 Čelibići Appeal Judgement, para. 434 (emphasis in original). See also Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 37.
22 See Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 56.
23 See Halilović Appeal Judgement, para. 11.
24 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, paras 55-72. See also Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 39.
25 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 7; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 10. See also Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, para. 11.
26 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 7; Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 10.
27 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 8 (internal citation omitted). See also Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 11; Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, para. 12.
28 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 9; Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 12. See also Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, para. 13.
29 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 9; Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 12. See also Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, para. 13.
30 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 9; Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 11.
31 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 10; Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 13.
32 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 10 (internal citation omitted). See also Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 13; Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, para. 14.
33 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 11; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 14. See also Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, para. 15.
34 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 11; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 14. See also Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, para. 15.
35 Practice Direction on Formal Requirements for Appeals from Judgement, IT/201, 7 March 2002 (“Practice Direction on Formal Requirements”), paras 1(c)(iii)-(iv), 4(b). See also Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 12; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 15; Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, para. 16.
36 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 12; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 15. See also Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, para. 16.
37 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 12; Gotovina and Markač Appeal Judgement, para. 15. See also Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, para. 16.
38 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28764-28768. In addition, the Trial Chamber considered whether evidence of forcible transfer could satisfy the requirement of Article 4(2)(b) of the Statute. See T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28766-28767. Given that forcible transfer was not charged as an underlying act of genocide in relation to Count 1 of the Indictment, the Prosecution did not pursue any appeal in relation to the Trial Chamber’s findings in this regard. See Notice of Appeal, n. 4. See also Indictment, para. 40.
39 Notice of Appeal, paras 3-10; Appeal Brief, paras 15-53. See also Reply, paras 5-9.
40 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28764.
41 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28765.
42 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28765 (emphasis added).
43 Appeal Brief, paras 17-24.
44 Appeal Brief, paras 17-20.
45 Appeal Brief, para. 17. See also Appeal Brief, paras 18-20.
46 Appeal Brief, para. 20. See also Reply, para. 7.
47 Appeal Brief, paras 21-24.
48 Response, para. 28. See also Response, paras 233, 252.
49 Response, para. 29.
50 Rule 98 bis of the Rules. See also supra, para. 9.
51 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 37 (emphasis in original and internal quotation marks omitted). See also Čelebići Appeal Judgement, para. 434.
52 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 55.
53 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 45.
54 See, e.g., Jelisić Appeal Judgement, paras 45-46. See also Stakić Appeal Judgement, paras 33-35.
55 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28765 (emphasis added).
56 See Article 4(2) of the Statute (“Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such [ . . . ].”) (emphasis added).
57 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28765 (emphasis added).
58 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28764-28765.
59 See T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28758-28761.
60 See Appeal Brief, paras 17-24.
61 See supra, para. 24.
62 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28765-28766.
63 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28766.
64 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28766.
65 Appeal Brief, paras 26-35.
66 Appeal Brief, para. 28.
67 Appeal Brief, para. 26, quoting T. 28 June 2012 p. 28766 (alterations in original).
68 Appeal Brief, para. 28, quoting Seromba Appeal Judgement, para. 46.
69 Appeal Brief, para. 28 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Appeal Brief, para. 27.
70 Appeal Brief, para. 29.
71 Appeal Brief, paras 30-34. See also Reply, para. 8.
72 Appeal Brief, para. 35. See also Reply, para. 6.
73 Appeal Brief, paras 36-38.
74 Appeal Brief, para. 36.
75 Appeal Brief, para. 38, citing, inter alia, Seromba Appeal Judgement, para. 46.
76 Response, para. 30. See also Response, paras 233, 252.
77 Response, para. 30.
78 Response, para. 31. See also Response, para. 37 (referring to the Trial Chamber’s “alternative holding”).
79 Response, paras 32-36.
80 See supra, para. 9.
81 See supra, para. 22.
82 Seromba Appeal Judgement, para. 46. See also Seromba Appeal Judgement, para. 48 (discussing “heinous crimes that obviously constitute serious bodily or mental harm, such as rape and torture”).
83 See Appeal Brief, paras 36-38.
84 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28767.
85 See, e.g., T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28765-28766. See also Appeal Brief, paras 36-37 and citations contained therein.
86 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 70, p. 14 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Jusuf Avdispahić regarding detainees at the Ekonomija farm in Zvornik); Prosecution Exhibit 3881, p. 53 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Idriz Meržanić regarding detainees at Trnopolje camp in Prijedor); Prosecution Exhibit 3528, para. 23 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Kerim Mešanović regarding detainees at Omarska Camp in Prijedor); Prosecution Exhibit 680, p. 7 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ050 regarding detainees at Keraterm camp in Prijedor); Prosecution Exhibit 3212, pp. 34-35 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ibro Osmanović regarding detainees at Sušica camp in Vlasenica); Prosecution Exhibit 3568, pp. 17, 41 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ017 regarding detainees at KP Dom in Foča); Prosecution Exhibit 718, para. 62 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ahmet Zulić regarding detainees at the Betonirka factory in Sanski Most); AF935 (regarding detainees in Ključ); AF1150-1151, AF1175, AF1184, AF1237 (regarding detainees in Prijedor); AF1326, AF1339 (regarding detainees in Sanski Most). Throughout the Judgement, where original forms of exhibits are in B/C/S, citations refer to the relevant English translation.
87 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 3528, para. 23 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Kerim Mešanović regarding detainees at Omarska camp in Prijedor); Prosecution Exhibit 680, p. 7 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ050 regarding detainees at Keraterm camp in Prijedor); Prosecution Exhibit 3212, p. 23 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ibro Osmanović regarding detainees at the municipality prison in Vlasenica); Prosecution Exhibit 718, para. 62 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ahmet Zulić regarding detainees at the Betonirka factory in Sanski Most); Prosecution Exhibit 3568, p. 17 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ017 regarding detainees at KP Dom in Foča); T. 19 September 2011 p. 19078 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ052 regarding detainees at the Krings facility in Sanski Most); AF935, AF939 (regarding detainees in Ključ); AF1260 (regarding detainees in Prijedor); AF1326 (regarding detainees in Sanski Most).
88 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 70, p. 20 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Jusuf Avdispahić regarding detainees at the Ekonomija farm in Zvornik); Prosecution Exhibit 3212, p. 23 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ibro Osmanović regarding detainees at the municipality prison in Vlasenica); Prosecution Exhibit 718, para. 69 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ahmet Zulić regarding detainees at the Betonirka factory in Sanski Most); T. 19 September 2011 p. 19078 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ052 regarding detainees at the Krings facility in Sanski Most); Prosecution Exhibit 3336, p. 30 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ239 regarding detainees at KP Dom in Foča); AF935 (regarding detainees in Ključ); AF1208 (regarding detainees in Prijedor); AF1354 (regarding detainees in Sanski Most).
89 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 70, p. 19 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Jusuf Avdispahić regarding detainees at the Ekonomija farm in Zvornik); Prosecution Exhibit 3881, p. 53 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Idriz Meržanić regarding detainees at Trnopolje camp in Prijedor); Prosecution Exhibit 3528, para. 23 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Kerim Mešanović regarding detainees at Omarska camp in Prijedor); Prosecution Exhibit 3212, p. 23 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ibro Osmanović regarding detainees at the municipality prison in Vlasenica); AF939 (regarding detainees in Ključ); AF1173 (regarding detainees in Prijedor); AF1326 (regarding detainees in Sanski Most).
90 See, e.g., AF871 (regarding detainees in Foča); AF939 (regarding detainees in Ključ); AF1237 (regarding detainees in Prijedor).
91 See, e.g., AF1210 (regarding detainees in Prijedor); AF2699 (regarding detainees in Vlasenica).
92 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 70, p. 20 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Jusuf Avdispahić regarding detainees at the Ekonomija farm in Zvornik); Prosecution Exhibit 3303, p. 101 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Mirzet Karaberg regarding detainees at the prison in Sanski Most); AF1173, AF1210 (regarding detainees in Prijedor); AF1326 (regarding detainees in Sanski Most); AF1339 (regarding detainees in Sanski Most).
93 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 3528, para. 23 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Kerim Mešanović regarding detainees at Omarska camp in Prijedor); Prosecution Exhibit 3212, p. 23 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ibro Osmanović regarding detainees at the municipality prison in Vlasenica); AF1110 (regarding detainees in Prijedor); AF2699 (regarding detainees in Vlasenica).
94 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 718, para. 69 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ahmet Zulić regarding detainees at the Betonirka factory in Sanski Most); AF935 (regarding detainees in Ključ); AF1339 (regarding detainees in Sanski Most).
95 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 70, pp. 12-13, 19-20 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Jusuf Avdispahić regarding detainees at the Ekonomija farm in Zvornik); Prosecution Exhibit 718, para. 74 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ahmet Zulić regarding detainees at the Betonirka factory in Sanski Most); AF862, AF870, AF880 (regarding detainees in Foča); AF1330 (regarding detainees in Sanski Most).
96 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 718, para. 62 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ahmet Zulić regarding detainees at the Betonirka factory in Sanski Most); AF936 (regarding detainees in Ključ).
97 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 70, pp. 14, 20 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Jusuf Avdispahić regarding detainees at the Ekonomija farm in Zvornik); Prosecution Exhibit 718, para. 69 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ahmet Zulić regarding detainees at the Betonirka factory in Sanski Most).
98 See, e.g., AF1169 (regarding detainees in Prijedor).
99 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 718, para. 74 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ahmet Zulić regarding detainees at the Betonirka factory in Sanski Most); AF936 (regarding detainees in Ključ).
100 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 70, p. 23 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Jusuf Avdispahić regarding detainees at the Ekonomija farm in Zvornik).
101 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 3336, pp. 21, 63 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ239 regarding detainees at the Livade warehouses and KP Dom in Foča); Prosecution Exhibit 3528, para. 27 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Kerim Mešanović regarding detainees at Omarska camp in Prijedor).
102 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 63, p. 31 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Mirsad Kuralić regarding the effects of being beaten at detention facilities, including one in Vlasenica).
103 See, e.g., AF1260 (regarding detainees in Prijedor).
104 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 70, p. 17 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Jusuf Avdispahić regarding detainees at the Ekonomija farm in Zvornik); Prosecution Exhibit 3528, para. 23 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Kerim Mešanović regarding detainees at Omarska camp in Prijedor); Prosecution Exhibit 3881, p. 53 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Idriz Meržanić regarding detainees at Trnopolje camp in Prijedor).
105 See, e.g., T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28765-28766. See also Appeal Brief, paras 36-37 and citations contained therein. 106 See, e.g., T. 16 September 2011 pp. 18946-18947 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ239 regarding detainees at Partizan Hall in Foča); AF787, AF792-794, AF803, AF814, AF819, AF821 (regarding detainees in Foča); AF1168, AF1213, AF1238-1241 (regarding detainees in Prijedor).
107 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 70, pp. 15-16 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Jusuf Avdispahić regarding detainees at the Ekonomija farm in Zvornik); AF2749 (regarding detainees at the Čelopek Dom Culture facility in Zvornik).
108 Rule 98 bis of the Rules. See also supra, para. 9.
109 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 55.
110 Seromba Appeal Judgement, para. 46. See also Seromba Appeal Judgement, para. 48 (referring to “heinous crimes that obviously constitute serious bodily or mental harm, such as rape and torture”).
111 See supra, nn. 86-107.
112 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28767.
113 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28767.
114 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28767.
115 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28767.
116 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768. See also T. 28 June 2012 p. 28767.
117 Appeal Brief, paras 40-42.
118 Appeal Brief, para. 41.
119 Appeal Brief, para. 41, citing Branin Trial Judgement, paras 907-962.
120 Appeal Brief, para. 41 (internal quotation marks omitted).
121 Appeal Brief, paras 43-52.
122 Appeal Brief, para. 43.
123 Appeal Brief, paras 44-50. See also Appeal Brief, paras 41, 52.
124 Appeal Brief, para. 51. In its Notice of Appeal, the Prosecution also asserts that the Trial Chamber failed to apply the correct Rule 98 bis standard by failing to take the evidence at its highest. Notice of Appeal, para. 9. The Prosecution has not made submissions concerning this aspect of its appeal in its Appeal Brief. See Appeal Brief, paras 40-53. The argument is therefore deemed abandoned. See Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, n. 15.
125 See Response, paras 27-37.
126 See supra, paras 9, 21.
127 See supra, para. 22.
128 Perišić Appeal Judgement, para. 9; Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 11. See also supra, para. 13.
129 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28767.
130 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28767. See also T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28758-28761.
131 Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 139; Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, paras 139, 141; Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 23.
132 Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-AR72.5, Decision on Appeal of Trial Chamber’s Decision on Preliminary Motion to Dismiss Count 11 of the Indictment, 9 July 2009, para. 11. See also Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 25.
133 Cf. Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 141.
134 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768.
135 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768.
136 See Appeal Brief, paras 43-52.
137 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28767.
138 See, e.g., T. 28 June 2012 p. 28767. See also Appeal Brief, paras 44-51 and citations contained therein.
139 See, e.g., T. 1 September 2011 pp. 18159-18160 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ603 that more than a thousand detainees were housed in a hall at Sušica camp in Vlasenica); Prosecution Exhibit 693, pp. 3-4 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Safet Taci regarding detention conditions at Keraterm camp in Prijedor). See also Prosecution Exhibit 3336, p. 38 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ239 regarding detention conditions at KP Dom in Foča).
140 See Prosecution Exhibit 680, pp. 8-9 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ050 regarding detainees at Keraterm camp in Prijedor); AF1198-1199.
141 AF843. See also AF842, AF844.
142 AF1139.
143 Prosecution Exhibit 718, para. 57 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ahmet Zulić regarding detainees at the Betonirka factory in Sanski Most); AF1333, AF1335.
144 AF1343.
145 AF854-856.
146 AF1201.
147 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 678, p. 59 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ048 that at the Omarska camp in Prijedor detainees were given one meal per day at most and were often were not fed at all); Prosecution Exhibit 3336, pp. 49-50, 134 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ239 that non-Serb detainees at the KP Dom facility in Foča were deliberately given very little food, and the food was of poor quality); Prosecution Exhibit 680, p. 11 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ050 that detainees at Keraterm camp in Prijedor were not given food); AF851-853 (at the KP Dom detention facility in Foča, non-Serb detainees were purposefully fed inadequate amounts of food, leading to severe weight loss and other health problems); AF1141-1142, AF1145 (detainees at Omarska camp in Prijedor were fed once a day and were only allowed one or two minutes to eat, causing some prisoners to lose at least 20-30 kilograms during their detention); AF1202 (detainees at Keraterm camp in Prijedor were inadequately fed or were not fed at all and thus suffered from malnutrition and starvation); AF1234 (detainees at Trnopolje camp in Prijedor were not provided with any food); AF1337 (detainees at the Betonirka facility in Sanski Most were provided with insufficient and low quality food).
148 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 680, pp. 9, 11 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ050 that during his first two days of detention at Keraterm camp in Prijedor he was not provided with any water); AF1146-1147 (detainees at Omarska camp in Prijedor were denied water or were provided with water not fit for human consumption); AF1233 (there was almost no water to drink at the Trnopolje camp in Prijedor).
149 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 680, pp. 11-12 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ050 that upon arriving at Keraterm camp in Prijedor, detainees were kept in a room without toilet facilities for two days, and then they were only provided with a single open barrel); Prosecution Exhibit 3336, pp. 49-50 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ239 KDZ239 that detainees at the KP Dom facility in Foča could not bathe, which led to a lice outbreak); AF845, AF847 (at the KP Dom facility in Foča there was no access to bathing or laundry facilities, which led to the spread of lice); AF1148-1149 (Omarska camp in Prijedor lacked toilet and washing facilities, leading to the spread of skin disease, diarrhea, and dysentery among the detainee population); AF1200 (at Keraterm camp in Prijedor there were few toilet and washing facilities, leading to the spread of lice, and detainees were only permitted to use the toilet once a day); AF1232, AF1235 (Trnopolje camp in Prijedor lacked running water and there were limited toilet facilities, which created unsanitary conditions that led to the spread of lice, scabies, and dysentery); AF1338 (at the Betonirka facility in Sanski Most there were no bathing or laundry facilities, and detainees could use proper toilet facilities only at the whim of the guards, otherwise using buckets and bags).
150 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 55.
151 Rule 98 bis of the Rules. See also supra, para. 9.
152 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28769-28770. See also T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28764-28768.
153 Notice of Appeal, paras 11-21; Appeal Brief, paras 54-110. See also Reply, paras 10-18.
154 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28765 (emphasis added).
155 T; 28 June 2012 p. 28766 (emphasis added).
156 Appeal Brief, paras 99-102. See also Appeal Brief, n. 335.
157 Appeal Brief, para. 100. See also Appeal Brief, paras 101-102.
158 Appeal Brief, para. 101, citing T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28768-28769. In its Notice of Appeal, the Prosecution also contends that the Trial Chamber failed to provide a reasoned opinion in relation to this sub-ground of appeal. See Notice of Appeal, para. 20. The Prosecution has not made submissions concerning this aspect of its appeal in its Appeal Brief. See Appeal Brief, paras 99-102. The argument is therefore deemed abandoned. See Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, n. 15.
159 Appeal Brief, para.102.
160 Response, para. 252.
161 Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 55
162 Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 55.
163 See supra, para. 9.
164 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28764-28766. Although the Trial Chamber found that the evidence of the conditions of detention could not support an inference that Bosnian Muslims and/or Bosnian Croats were detained in “conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction”, T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768, the Appeals Chamber fails to discern how this finding constitutes a finding as to genocidal intent, as the Prosecution suggests. See Article 4(2)(c) of the Statute (concerning the underlying genocidal act of “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”) (emphasis added). See also supra, paras 22, 39-40.
165 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28765 (emphasis added).
166 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28768-28769.
167 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
168 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
169 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28765.
170 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28765 (emphasis added).
171 Appeal Brief, paras 103-110. The Prosecution asserts that this sub-ground of appeal is in the alternative to its arguments in relation to the actus reus of killing. See Appeal Brief, para. 103. See also supra, Section III.A.1.
172 Appeal Brief, paras 104-105.
173 Appeal Brief, para. 106.
174 Appeal Brief, para. 107 (referring to the Trial Chamber’s discussion of “‘a significant section[ . . . ] and a substantial number’” of members of the Bosnian Muslim and/or Bosnian Croat groups) (emphasis added), quoting T. 28 June 2012 p. 28765.
175 Appeal Brief, para. 108.
176 Appeal Brief, para. 109.
177 Response, para. 253.
178 Response, para. 253.
179 Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 12 (internal citation omitted). See also Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, para. 40; Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 8.
180 Indictment, para. 38 (emphasis added).
181 Indictment, para. 38.
182 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28765.
183 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28764-28766. See also supra, paras 23-24.
184 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768.
185 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768.
186 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768.
187 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28768-28769.
188 Appeal Brief, paras 54, 86-92.
189 Appeal Brief, paras 86-87, 91.
190 Appeal Brief, para. 87.
191 Appeal Brief, para. 88.
192 Appeal Brief, para. 88, citing T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28750-28751, 28757.
193 Appeal Brief, para. 88, citing T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28752-28758.
194 Appeal Brief, paras 89-90. See also Appeal Brief, para. 87.
195 Appeal Brief, para. 89, quoting T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769. See also Appeal Brief, para. 90.
196 Appeal Brief, para. 90, citing T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769 (emphasis added).
197 Appeal Brief, para. 92.
198 Appeal Brief, para. 92, quoting T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
199 Appeal Brief, para. 92.
200 Response, paras 248-249.
201 Response, para. 250.
202 Response, para. 251. See also Response, paras 223-237, 250. According to Karadžić, genocide, as distinct from direct and public incitement to commit genocide or conspiracy to commit genocide, is not an inchoate crime because it “has to have been committed in order for an individual who wished it to come about to be liable for that crime”. Response, para. 228, citing Gatete Appeal Judgement, para. 260.
203 Reply, para. 5.
204 Reply, para. 11. See also Reply, para. 5.
205 Reply, paras 11-13.
206 Indictment, paras 11-14. See also Indictment, para. 37; Appeal Brief, para. 91.
207 Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 225. See also Branin Appeal Judgement, paras 413, 430.
208 Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 225. See also Branin Appeal Judgement, para. 410.
209 Krajišnik Appeal Judgement, para. 226. See also Branin Appeal Judgement, para. 410.
210 Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, para. 40. See also Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, para. 525; Kayishema and Ruzindana Appeal Judgement, para. 159.
211 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768. See also T. 28 June 2012 p. 28751.
212 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, paras 47-48. See also Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 34; Hategekimana Appeal Judgement, para. 133; Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, paras 40-41.
213 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28764-28766. See also supra, paras 23-24.
214 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768.
215 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768.
216 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28768-28769.
217 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28768-28769.
218 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768 (stating that “in the absence of direct evidence that the physical perpetrators of the crimes alleged to have been committed in the municipalities carried out these crimes with genocidal intent, the Chamber can infer specific intent from a number of factors and circumstances”) (emphasis added).
219 See T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
220 See T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28768-28769.
221 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28751.
222 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28751-28752. See also T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28753-28758.
223 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28751. See also T. 11 June 2012 pp. 28587, 28594.
224 See T. 11 June 2012 pp. 28570-28578, 28580.
225 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28757 (noting that the Trial Chamber “has heard evidence indicating that genocidal acts took place in the Srebrenica area in the summer of 1995 and that they were committed with the requisite specific intent for genocide” before proceeding to find, “[i]n light all the evidence”, that Karadžić’s genocidal intent may be inferred).
226 See supra, para. 80.
227 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
228 See, e.g., T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28752-28758.
229 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28774.
230 Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 23-24. See also Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 380.
231 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28765-66, citing testimony from, inter alia, Prosecution Witnesses Sead Hodžić, KDZ610, KDZ239, KDZ075, KDZ048, Ivo Atlija, KDZ050, KDZ605, KDZ603, and Jusuf Avdispahić. See also supra, paras 23-24.
232 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768.
233 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
234 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
235 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
236 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
237 Appeal Brief, paras 54, 63, 86, 93-97. See also Reply, paras 16-17.
238 Appeal Brief, para. 94, quoting T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769 (emphasis added).
239 Appeal Brief, para. 94 (emphasis in original), quoting T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
240 Appeal Brief, para. 95, quoting T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769. See also Appeal Brief, para. 63.
241 Appeal Brief, para. 95, citing T. 13 June 2012 pp. 28706-28707, 28709, 28711-28714, T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
242 Appeal Brief, para. 96, citing Jelisić Appeal Judgement, paras 69-72.
243 Appeal Brief, para. 98, quoting T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769. See also Appeal Brief, para. 54.
244 Appeal ’Brief, paras 55-85. See also Reply, paras 5, 10.
245 Appeal Brief, paras 56-67.
246 Appeal Brief, paras 56-59. See also Appeal Brief, para. 85.
247 Appeal Brief, paras 68-83. See also Appeal Brief, para. 85.
248 Appeal Brief, para. 84.
249 Response, paras 223-246.
250 Response, paras 38-246.
251 Response, para. 40, n. 28. See also Response, paras 49-59 (discussing Prosecutor v. Duško Sikirica et al., Case No. IT-95-8-T, Judgement on Defence Motions to Acquit, 4 September 2001), 60-65 (discussing the Stakić Trial Judgement and Stakić Appeal Judgement), 68-79 (discussing the Branin Trial Judgement), 80-86 (discussing the Krajišnik Trial Judgement), 87-95 (discussing 2007 ICJ Judgement, p. 43). See also Response, paras 41-48 (discussing the Jelisić Trial Judgement and Jelisić Appeal Judgement), 66-67 (discussing Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević, Case No. IT-02-54-T, Decision on Motion for Judgement of Acquittal, 16 June 2004). Karadžić also underscores that the 2007 ICJ Judgement and certain other cases at the Tribunal in which judgements of acquittal were entered involved allegations or evidence that overlap in whole or part with the allegations and evidence related to Count 1 of the Indictment in his case. See Response, paras 59, 65, 79, 86-87, 96.
252 Response, paras 96-211.
253 Response, para. 212. See also Response, paras 213-222.
254 Reply, para. 18.
255 Reply, para. 14. See also Reply, paras 13, 15.
256 See AT. 17 April 2013 p. 57.
257 See Appeal Brief, para. 84; Response, paras 40-211.
258 See, e.g., Čelebići Appeal Judgement, para. 24. Cf. Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 114.
259 Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, Case No. IT-06-90-A, Decision on Motion to Intervene and Statement of Interest by the Republic of Croatia, 8 February 2012, para. 12.
260 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
261 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769 (emphasis added).
262 See supra, para. 80.
263 See T. 28 June 2012 p. 28769.
264 See T. 13 June 2012 pp. 28706-28714.
265 See Jelisić Appeal Judgement, paras 69-72.
266 Prosecution Exhibit 3405, para. 95. See also Appeal Brief, para. 65.
267 AT. 17 April 2013 p. 55.
268 See, e.g., Appeal Brief, paras 60-61 and citations contained therein. See also AT. 17 April 2013 pp. 14-16.
269 Prosecution Exhibit 1394, p. 76.
270 Prosecution Exhibit 3200, p. 2; Prosecution Exhibit 5846, p. 3; Defence Exhibit 279, pp. 3, 7-8.
271 See, e.g., Appeal Brief, para. 67 and citations contained therein. See also AT. 17 April 2013 p. 17.
272 Prosecution Exhibit 1385, p. 49. See also Prosecution Exhibit 1385, pp. 47-48.
273 Prosecution Exhibit 1487, p. 17.
274 See, e.g., T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768. See also Appeal Brief, paras 68-75 and citations contained therein.
275 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 47. See also Krstić Appeal Judgement, para. 34; Hategekimana Appeal Judgement, para. 133; Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement, paras 40-41.
276 T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768.
277 See, e.g., Prosecution Exhibit 70, pp. 11-23 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Jusuf Avdispahić regarding conditions at the Ekonomija farm in Zvornik, where detainees were severely beaten, sexually assaulted, forced to work, and killed while guards showed signs of religious and national animus); T. 29 March 2012 p. 27175 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ610 regarding the mass killing of Muslims and detention of Muslim civilians in Zvornik); Prosecution Exhibit 3380, pp. 33-36 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Petko Panić regarding the detention of approximately 700 Muslim men at Karakaj Technical School in Zvornik and the killing of detainees); Prosecution Exhibit 64, pp. 3-5 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Osman Krupinac, stating that Serbs shot and killed 36 men, women, and children during an attack on a village in Zvornik, as well as seven more men during other attacks on the village); T. 25 August 2011 pp. 17869-17870 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ605 that thousands of Muslims from Bratunac were detained and that, at one detention location, men were beaten to death, stabbed, and shot); T. 22 August 2011 pp. 17637-17638 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Mušan Talović that Bosnian Serbs attacked a village in Bratunac and killed at least 68 people); Prosecution Exhibit 3263, paras 10-28 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Suad Džafić about Serb attacks on Muslim villages in Bratunac, during which some villagers were killed and men of military age were transferred to detention centers); T. 20 October 2011 pp. 20308-20317 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Ivo Atlija that Bosnian Serb forces attacked villages in Prijedor and that more than 200 non-Serbs were killed, including men, women, and children); Prosecution Exhibit 3672, pp. 7-8 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Ivo Atlija that Bosnian Serb propaganda in Prijedor referred to non-Serbs using derogatory terms), 36-38 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Ivo Atlija regarding acts carried out by Bosnian Serbs with religious animus against a Catholic Croat); Prosecution Exhibit 3528, paras 25-33, 43-51 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Kerim Mešanović regarding his experience at the Omarska detention camp in Prijedor, where detainees were beaten and killed and would be taken away, never to return again, particularly those who were leaders in the Muslim community); Prosecution Exhibit 703, pp. 26-30 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ092 regarding the beating and killing of Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat men and women in a village in Prijedor); Prosecution Exhibit 674, pp. 14-35, 71-74 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ014 regarding an attack on a village in Prijedor, during which Serb soldiers killed Muslim civilians and destroyed the village mosque); Prosecution Exhibit 693, pp. 13-17, 27-28, 31-32 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Safet Taci about detainees being killed at the Keratem camp in Prijedor); Prosecution Exhibit 705, pp. 36-41 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ093 about killings of non-Serbs at Omarska camp in Prijedor); T. 16 September 2011 pp. 19012-19015 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ075 that Bosnian Serb forces killed at least 144 Bosnian Muslims in a village in Ključ); Prosecution Exhibit 686, pp. 10-15, 18-21, 30-34 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ056 regarding the killing of civilians from a village in Ključ); T. 15 September 2011 pp. 18907-18908 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ239 regarding his detention at KP Dom in Foča, where Muslim detainees were abused, beaten, killed, forced to work, and subjected to sub-standard living conditions), 18917 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ239 that most people at KP Dom were detained simply because they were Muslim); Prosecution Exhibit 3568, pp. 16-18, 53-63, 111-119 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ017 that Muslim detainees at KP Dom in Foča were severely beaten); Prosecution Exhibit 718, paras 36, 72, 77-81, 84-85 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness Ahmet Zulić regarding 300 civilians who were killed during attacks on villages in Sanski Most and detainees at the Betonirka factory in Sanski Most who were beaten and executed); Prosecution Exhibit 3515, pp. 15-18 (testimony from Grgo Stojić about the killing of non-Serb men from a village in Sanski Most); T. 1 September 2011 pp. 18133-18135 (testimony from Prosecution Witness KDZ603 that Bosnian Serb forces killed Muslim men in a village in Vlasenica, that the Bosnian Serbs used derogatory language against Muslim villagers, that non-Serbs were detained, and that detainees were not fed and were beaten); T. 6 September 2011 pp. 18430-18433 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Sead Hodžić that Bosnian Serb forces attacked a village in Vlasenica and killed more than 60 Muslim men, women, and children, and that during an attack on another village people were killed and raped); Prosecution Exhibit 3212, pp. 21-23, 33-38 (witness statement of Prosecution Witness lbro Osmanović regarding the municipality prison and Sušica camp in Vlasenica, where detainees were beaten, provided with little food, kept in poor living conditions, and killed); Prosecution Exhibit 1, pp. 106-108, 111-113 (testimony from Prosecution Witness Predrag Radić regarding the destruction of mosques in various municipalities); AF935 (in Ključ, Bosnian Muslim civilians who were arrested were subjected to ethnic slurs); AF1110 (detainees at the SJB building in Prijedor were subjected to ethnic slurs); AF1171 (detainees at Omarska camp in Prijedor were subjected to ethnic slurs). See also supra, paras 34-36, 48; Appeal Brief, paras 36-37, 44-51 and citations contained therein.
278 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 55.
279 Rule 98 bis of the Rules. See also supra, para. 9.
280 See supra, paras 97-98.
281 See supra, para. 99.
282 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28733-28734.
283 T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28769-28770.
284 Appeal Brief, para. 111. See also Notice of Appeal, paras 22-23; Appeal Brief, paras 112-115.
285 Appeal Brief, paras 111-112.
286 Appeal Brief, para. 112 (internal quotation marks omitted).
287 Appeal Brief, paras 111, 113-114.
288 Appeal Brief, paras 111, 113.
289 Appeal Brief, paras 111, 113-114. See also Appeal Brief, para. 112. In its Notice of Appeal, the Prosecution also asserts that the Trial Chamber failed to provide a reasoned opinion in relation to the applicability of other modes of liability. See Notice of Appeal, para. 22. The Prosecution has not made submissions concerning this aspect of its appeal in its Appeal Brief. Appeal Brief, paras 111-115. The argument is therefore deemed abandoned. See Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, n. 15.
290 Response, para. 254.
291 See supra, paras 37-38, 49-51, 101-102.
292 See supra, para. 104.
293 See T. 28 June 2012 p. 28768. See also supra, para. 51.
294 Response, para. 233 (emphasis omitted).
295 Response, para. 237. See also AT. 17 April 2013 pp. 41-42, 45.
296 Response, paras 233-236.
297 Response, paras 303-312.
298 Response, paras 303-309, citing Jelisić Appeal Judgement, paras 73-76.
299 Response, paras 310-312.
300 AT. 17 April 2013 pp. 58-59.
301 Reply, para. 21.
302 Reply, paras 22-23.
303 Practice Direction on Formal Requirements, para. 5. See also Prosecutor v. Ljube Boškoski and Johan Tarčulovski, Case No. IT-04-82-A, Decision on Ljube Boškoski’s Defence Motion for Extension of Word Limit, 25 November 2008, p. 3; Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10-A, Order, 21 March 2000, p. 4.
304 See supra, paras 37-38; 49-51, 101-102.
305 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 73. See also Article 25(2) of the Statute (“The Appeals Chamber may affirm, reverse or revise the decisions taken by the Trial Chambers.”); Rule 117(C) of the Rules (“In appropriate circumstances the Appeals Chamber may order that the accused be retried according to law.”).
306 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 73.
307 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 73.
308 Contra supra, para. 109.
309 See T. 28 June 2012 pp. 28765-28770.
310 See supra, paras 37-38, 49-51, 101-102.
311 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 74.
312 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 74.
313 Jelisić Appeal Judgement, paras 75-76.
314 See supra, paras 37-38, 49-51.
315 See supra, paras 97-102.
316 See supra, paras 112-114.
1 Prosecution Notice of Appeal of Judgement of Acquittal under Rule 98bis, 11 July 2012.
2 Prosecution Rule 98 bis Appeal Brief, 24 September 2012 (confidential). A public redacted version was filed on 25 September 2012.
3 Decision on Motion to Strike Prosecution’s Brief, 9 November 2012, para. 11.
4 Corrigendum to Prosecution Rule 98bis Appeal Brief, 19 November 2012.
5 Respondent’s Brief, 5 November 2012 (confidential). An initial public redacted version was filed on 5 November 2012, and a revised public redacted version was filed on 26 November 2012.
6 Prosecution Reply Brief for Rule 98bis Appeal, 20 November 2012 (confidential). A public redacted version was filed on 20 November 2012.
7 Order Assigning Judges to a Case Before the Appeals Chamber, 12 July 2012, p. 1.
8 Decision on Application for Leave to Submit an Amicus Curiae Brief, 21 September 2012, pp. 1-3.
9 Motion to Dismiss Appeal and for Appointment of Amicus Curiae Prosecutor, 18 March 2013 (“Motion to Dismiss”).
10 Prosecution Response to Karadžić’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal and for Appointment of Amicus Curiae Prosecutor, 28 March 2013.
11 Reply re: Motion to Dismiss Appeal and for Appointment of Amicus Curiae Prosecutor, 2 April 2013.
12 Decision on Motion to Dismiss Appeal and for Appointment of Amicus Curiae Prosecutor, 4 July 2013.
13 Scheduling Order, p. 1.
14 Scheduling Order, p. 2.
- 2
- Cited by