Today, Radovan Karadzic has filed an appeal to the UN’s Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals against his conviction by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in March this year.
The 238-page appeal “details 48 substantive and procedural errors” that led to an incorrect verdict, according to a statement issued by Karadzic’s lawyer Peter Robinson.
“Unless corrected, flawed trials and unjust judgments like mine will only accelerate the flight of countries such as South Africa and Russia from an international legal system that is politicised and based on double standards,” Karadzic said in the statement.
“It will also ruin the chance for international justice to succeed in the long term by establishing legal precedents based on short-term political expediencies,” the former Bosnian Serb political leader added.
Karadžić was charged with responsibility for atrocities including the siege of Sarajevo and the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslim men in the Srebrenica enclave. Continue reading
Kieu Samphan (left) and Nuon Chea
On 23 November 2016, the Supreme Court Chamber (SCC) of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) delivered its Appeal Judgment in Case 002/01 against former Khmer Rouge leaders Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan.
Nuon Chea, former Deputy Secretary of the Communist Party of Kampuchea, and Khieu Samphan, former Head of State of Democratic Kampuchea, were convicted by the Trial Chamber in August 2014 for crimes against humanity committed during the forced evacuation of Phnom Penh in April 1975 and subsequent forced transfer from other areas, as well as alleged execution of former Khmer Republic soldiers in Tuol Po Chrey in Pursat Province.
Both defendants appealed the decision, asking for a reversal of the trial judgment and to be acquitted of all charges, or failing that, Khieu Samphan asked for a reduced sentenced to a set number of years. Nuon Chea submitted 223 grounds of appeal and Khieu Samphan submitted 148 grounds of appeal. Their appeal arguments related to the constitutionality of the ECCC’s Internal Rules and the fairness of the proceedings; the Trial Chamber’s approach to evidence; the Trial Chamber’s findings relevant to the crimes for which the accused were convicted; and the accused’s individual criminal responsibility.
Today, the ICTY Prosecutor, Serge Brammertz stated that his Office will appeal the acquittal of Vojislav Šešelj.
The Office of the Prosecutor considers that there has been “a fundamental failure” by the Trial Chamber Majority to perform its judicial function and to properly adjudicate core aspects of the Prosecution’s case by, among other things, failing to consider large parts of the evidentiary record, making unreasonable and conflicting factual findings, or failing to properly apply the elements of modes of liability such as joint criminal enterprise and aiding and abetting in accordance with established case-law.
Moreover, the Prosecution explains that the Trial Chamber Majority unreasonably allowed for the possibility that criminal conduct was simply a lawful contribution to the war effort, despite the overwhelming body of evidence pointing against it. According to the Prosecution, this led the Trial Chamber Majority to unreasonably credit the possibility that: expelling civilians was a humanitarian gesture; that incendiary hate speech was simply morale boosting for the Serb forces; and that the deployment of ethnic cleansing forces was a measure to protect the Serb population.
Vojislav Šešelj, 61, had been charged with three counts of crimes against humanity and six of war crimes over ethnic cleansing in Croatia, Bosnia and the Serbian province of Vojvodina between August 1991 and September 1993.
The charges involved the forcible transfer of tens of thousands of civilians; torture, sexual assaults, beatings and other physical abuse of detained non-Serbs; the destruction of homes, religious sites, cultural institutions; and hate speech. Continue reading
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Today, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) completed its largest case to date. The Appeals Chamber issued its Judgment in the Popović et al case, upholding the convictions of five senior Bosnian Serbian military officials for crimes perpetrated by Bosnian Serb forces in July 1995 following the takeover of the protected areas of Srebrenica and Žepa.
The case concerned crimes committed in July 1995 after the fall of Srebrenica and Žepa in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Trial proceedings involved a total of seven accused, who were convicted for acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, violations of the laws and customs of wars, in part through several Joint Criminal Enterprises. Five of the accused appealed to the judgment of the Trial Chamber. Continue reading
Last week, on 29 December 2014, the defence team of the Khmer Rouge regimes former chief ideologue, Nuon Chea, filed a full appeal against the 88-year-olds life sentence and convictions for crimes against humanity.
Raising 223 grounds of appeal, Nuon Chea requested an acquittal on all charges for which he and Khieu Samphan were convicted in Case 002/01 by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) in August 2014.
The 270-page long appeal brief sets out numerous flaws in the criminal proceedings and in the trial judgment.
The brief first highlights two issues that have plagued the investigation: pervasive political interference and a biased flawed investigative approach of the Co-Investigating Judges.
Nuon Cheas lawyers alleged that the lack of independence and impartiality permeating the investigation were equally apparent before the Trial Chamber. According to the defence, the Trial Chamber is deeply biased against the Accused and incapable of impartially assessing the evidence (appeal grounds 3 & 4).
The defence based this claim on a careful and detailed analysis of the judgment, which reveals, according to the Appeals brief, that a substantial portion of the findings are, or would be reasonably perceived to be attributable to a pre-disposition against the accused, and not genuinely related to the application of law, or to the assessment of the relevant facts. Continue reading
Abdullah Al-Senussi (c) Libya Herald
Yesterday, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) confirmed that the case against Abdullah Al-Senussi is inadmissible.
On 11 October 2013, Pre-Trial Chamber I had declared the case against Mr Al-Senussi inadmissible on the grounds that the Libyan authorities were currently investigating Mr Al-Senussi and that they were willing and able genuinely to carry out domestic proceedings.
In rejecting the defence appeal, the Appeals Chamber held that there were no errors in the findings of the Pre-Trial Chamber that Libya is not unwilling or unable to genuinely prosecute Mr Al-Senussi, or in the exercise of its discretion in the conduct of the proceedings and in the evaluation of the evidence. Judges Usacka and Song appended respective separate opinions agreeing with the conclusion of the majority but formulating their own reasoning on the correct interpretation of the ‘same person, same conduct’ test, which must be satisfied to conclude that a given domestic authority is investigating or prosecuting the same case as that before the ICC.
Mr Al-Senussi held the rank of colonel in the Libyan Armed Forces and served as Muammar Gaddafi’s chief of intelligence before the fall of the regime during the Libyan uprising in 2011. The Prosecution had charged Mr Al-Senussi with murder and persecution as crimes against humanity for his involvement in utilising the State security forces to target the civilian population in an attempt to quell the revolution.
Mr Al-Senussi was charged alongside Muammar Gaddafi (since deceased) and Saif al-Islam Gaddafi. The latter also challenged the admissibility of his case before the ICC but the Appeals Chamber held on that occasion that the case was admissible.
Germain Katanga (c) ICC
This Wednesday, Germain Katanga discontinued his appeal against his conviction before the International Criminal Court (ICC). In a letter signed by Katanga and his defence counsel, David Hooper, Katanga stated that he “accept[ed] the conclusions rendered against [him] in the judgement and [he] express[ed] [his] sincere regrets to all who were affected by [his] conduct, including the victims of Bogoro.”
Katanga had been convicted by a majority of Trial Chamber II on 7 March 2014 of one count of crime against humanity (murder) and four counts of war crimes (murder, attacking a civilian population, destruction of property and pillaging)
committed on 24 February 2003 during the attack on the village of Bogoro in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He was sentenced, again by majority, to 12 years’ imprisonment with credit for the time he has served whilst in detention in The Hague - 7 years to date.
The Prosecutor subsequently informed the Appeals Chamber that she also discontinued her appeal against the judgment and that she does not intend to appeal the sentence imposed on Germain Katanga.
The issue of reparations for victims will be considered next.
Germain Katanga (c) AFP
On 9 April 2014, both the prosecution and the defence for Germain Katanga filed notices of appeal at the International Criminal Court.
Mr Katanga was convicted by a majority of Trial Chamber II on 7 March 2014 for war crimes and crimes against humanity for arming the Congolese militia who carried out an attack on civilians at the village of Bogoro in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 24 Febraury 2003. His contribution, according to the majority of the Chamber, was to act as the intermediary between the weapons and ammunition suppliers and those who physically perpetrated the crimes. Judge Van den Wyngaert dissented in strong terms with the finding of the majority.
The defence intend to appeal the whole of the judgment convicting Mr Katanga and request a reversal of the verdict on all charges. The prosecution are appealing the finding of acquittal on the charges of rape and sexual slavery.
The trial of Mr Katanga was originally joined to that of Mr Ngudjolo but was severed when the majority of the chamber activated Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court to recharacterise the legal qualification of the charges, in a move that has attracted strong criticism.