Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:35:38.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosecutor v. Stanišić and Simatović, Appeal Judgement (ICTY)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2017

Scott W. Lyons
Scott W. Lyons*
Affiliation:
Scott W. Lyons, J.D., M.A., is a Senior Lecturer and Regional Program Lead with the Defense Governance and Management Team at the Naval Postgraduate School. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Naval Postgraduate School, the Department of Defense, or any other government agency.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 657 - 725
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Prosecutor v. Stanišić and Simatović, Appeal Judgement, No. IT-03-69-A (Dec. 9, 2015) [hereinafter Stanišić and Simatović Appeal Judgement].

2 Prosecutor v. Stanišić, Trial Judgment, No. IT-03-69-T (May 30, 2013).

3 Stanišić and Simatović Appeal Judgement, supra note 1, ¶ 122.

4 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Šljivančanin, Decision on Motion on Behalf of Veselin Šljivančanin Seeking Reconsideration of the Judgement Rendered by the Appeals Chamber on 5 May 2009 - or an Alternative Remedy, No. IT-95-13/1-A (Dec. 8, 2009).

5 See Semanza v. Prosecuor, No. ICTR-97-20-A, ¶ 74 (May 31, 2000) (“The non bis in idem principle applies only where a person has effectively already been tried. The term ‘tried’ implies that proceedings in the national court constituted a trial for the acts covered by the indictment brought against the Accused by the Tribunal and at the end of which trial a final judgement is rendered.”); see also Prosecutor v. ORIĆ, Decision on an Application for Leave to Appeal the Single Judge's Decision on 10 December 2015 Submitted by Appeals Chamber on 17 February 2016, No. MICT-14-79, ¶ 13 (February 18, 2016).

6 Stanišić and Simatović Appeal Judgement, supra note 1, ¶ 121 (citing the Prosecution reply brief).

7 See, e.g., Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights art. 4, Nov. 22, 1984, Europ. T.S. No. 117.

8 See Rutaganda v. Prosecutor, Judgement, No. ICTR-96-3-A (May 26, 2003); see also Prosecutor v. Galić, Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pocar, No. IT-98-29-A (Nov. 30, 2006).

9 Prosecutor v. Perišić, Appeal Judgment, No. IT-04-81-A (Feb. 28, 2013).

10 Prosecutor v. Taylor, Appeal Judgment, No. SCSL-03-01-A (Sept. 26, 2013).

11 Prosecutor v. Šainović, Appeal Judgment, No. IT-05-87-A (Jan. 23, 2014).

12 Prosecutor v. Stanišić and Simatović, No. MICT-15-96. Case information sheet available at http://www.unmict.org/sites/default/files/cases/public-information/cis-stanisic-simatovic-en.pdf.

13 S.C. Res. 1966 (2010). The United Nations Security Council created the MICT on December 22, 2010, as a small and temporary entity. The MICT began activities on July 1, 2012, in Arusha, Tanzania, and on July 1, 2013, in The Hague, the Netherlands.