A. Procedural background
1. The Appeals
Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (“International Tribunal” or “Tribunal”) is seised of three appeals in relation to the Opinion and Judgment rendered by Trial Chamber II1 on 7 May 1997 in the case of The Prosecutor v. Du⌃ko Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-T (“Judgement”)2 and the subsequent Sentencing Judgment of 14 July 1997 (“Sentencing Judgement”).3 With the exception of the Appeals Chamber’s judgement in The Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemovic4 where the accused had entered a plea of guilty, this is the first time that the Appeals Chamber is deciding an appeal from a final judgement of a Trial Chamber.
2. The Indictment (as amended) charged the accused, Du⌃ko Tadic, with 34 counts of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal. At his initial appearance before the Trial Chamber on 26 April 1995, the accused pleaded not guilty to all counts. Three of the counts were subsequently withdrawn at trial. Of the remaining 31 counts, the Trial Chamber found the accused guilty on nine counts, guilty in part on two counts and not guilty on twenty counts.
3. Both Du⌃ko Tadic (“Defence” or “ Appellant”) and the Prosecutor (“Prosecution” or
“Cross-Appellant”) now appeal against separate aspects of the Judgement (“ Appeal against Judgement” and “Cross-Appeal”, respectively).5 Additionally, the Defence appeals against the Sentencing Judgement (“ Appeal against Sentencing Judgement”). Combined, these appeals are referred to as “the Appeals”.
1 Composed of Judge Gabrielle K irk McDonald (Presiding), Judge Ninian Stephen and Judge Lal Chand Vohrah.
2 “Opinion and Judgment”, The Prosecutor v. Du⌃ko Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-T, Trial Chamber II, 7 May 1997. (For a list of designations and abbreviations used in this Judgement, see Annex A – Glossary of Terms).
3 “Sentencing Judgment”, The Prosecutor v. Du⌃ko Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-T, Trial Chamber II, 14 July 1997.
4 “Judgement”, The Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemovic, Case No.: IT-96-22-A, Appeals Chamber, 7 October 1997.
5 It should be observed that Du{ko Tadi } in the present proceedings is appellant and cross-respondent.
Conversely, the Prosecutor is respondent and cross-appellant. In the interest of clarity of presentation,
4. Oral argument on the Appeals was heard by the Appeals Chamber on 19, 20 and 21 April 1999. On 21 April 1999, the Appeals Chamber reserved its judgement to a later date.
5. Having considered the written and oral submissions of the Prosecution and the Defence, the Appeals Chamber,
HEREBY RENDERS ITS JUDGEMENT.
1. The Appeals (a) Notices of Appeal
6. A notice of appeal against the Judgement was filed on behalf of Du⌃ko Tadic on 3 June 1997. Subsequently, on 8 January 1999, the Defence filed an amended notice of appeal (“ Amended Notice of Appeal against Judgement”).6 Leave to amend the notice of appeal was granted, in part, by the Appeals Chamber in an oral order made on 25 January 1999.7
7. On 6 June 1997, the Prosecution filed a notice of appeal against the Judgement (“Notice of Cross-Appeal”).8
8. After the notices of appeal against the Judgement were filed, proceedings continued before the Trial Chamber in relation to sentencing, and on 14 July 1997 the Trial Chamber delivered its Sentencing Judgement. Sentences were imposed for each of the 11 counts on which the Appellant had been found guilty or guilty in part, to be served concurrently. On 11 August 1997, the Defence filed a notice of appeal against the Sentencing Judgement.
The Prosecution has not appealed against the Sentencing Judgement.
however, the designations “Defence” or “ Appellant” and “Prosecution” or “Cross-Appellant” will be employed throughout this Judgement.
6 “ Amended Notice of Appeal”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A , 8 January 1999.
7 Transcript of hearing in The Prosecutor v Du⌃ko Tadic, Case No.: IT-94-1-A , 25 January 1999, p. 307 (T.
307 (25 January 1999). (A ll transcript page numbers referred to in the course of this Judgement are from the unofficial, uncorrected version of the English transcript. Minor differences may therefore exist between the pagination therein and that of the final English transcript released to the public).
8 “Notice of Appeal”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A , 6 June 1997.
(b) Filing of Briefs
9. As set out in further detail below, the present proceedings were significantly delayed by repeated applications for extension of time in relation to an application for admission of additional evidence first made by the Defence on 6 October 1997.9 In January 1998, the Appeals Chamber suspended the timetable for filings in the Appeals until the determination of the Appellant’s application.10 Following the Appeals Chamber’s decision of 15 October 1998 on the matter,11 the normal appeals sequence resumed. In view of the rather complicated pattern formed by the parties’ briefs on the Appeals, it is useful to refer to the written submissions filed by the parties.
10. The Defence filed separate briefs for the Appeal against Judgement (“ Appellant’s Brief on Judgement”) and the Appeal against Sentencing Judgement (“ Appellant’s Brief on Sentencing Judgement”). These briefs were filed on 12 January 1998.12 The Prosecution responded to the briefs of the Appellant on 16 and 17 November 1998 (“Prosecution’s Response to Appellant’s Brief on Judgement” and “Prosecution’s Response to Appellant’s Brief on Sentencing Judgement”, respectively).13
11. As a consequence of filing an Amended Notice of Appeal against Judgement, the Defence filed an Amended Brief of Argument (with annexes) on 8 January 1999 (“ Appellant’s Amended Brief on Judgement”).14 This subsequent brief was accepted by order of the Appeals Chamber on 25 January 1999.15
12. Alongside the filings in relation to the Appellant’s Appeal against Judgement and Appeal against Sentencing Judgement, both parties filed written submissions in relation to the Prosecution’s Cross-Appeal. The Prosecution’s brief in relation to the Cross-Appeal
9 “Motion for the Extension of the Time Limit”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A , 6 October 1997.
10 T. 105 (22 January 1998).
11 “Decision on Appellant’s Motion for the Extension of the Time-limit and Admission of Additional Evidence”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A , 15 October 1998.
12 “ Appellants Brief on Appeal Against Opinion and Judgement of 7 May 1997”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A , 12 January 1998, with accompanying appendices separately filed; “ Appellant’s Brief on Appeal Against Sentencing Judgement” Case No.: IT-94-1-A , 12 January 1998.
13 “Cross-Appellant’s Response to Appellant’s Brief on Appeal against Opinion and Judgement of May 7, 1997, Filed on 12 January 1998”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A , 17 November 1998; “Response to Appellant’s Brief on Appeal Against Sentencing Judgement filed on 12 January 1998”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A , 16 November 1998.
14 “ Amended Brief of Argument on behalf of the Appellant”, Case No.: IT-94-1-A , 8 January 1999.
15 T. 308 (25 January 1999).
was filed on 12 January 1998 (“Cross-Appellant’s Brief”).16 A response to the Prosecution’s brief was filed by the Defence on 24 July 1998.17 The Prosecution filed a brief in reply on 1 December 1998 (“Cross-Appellant’s Brief in Reply”).18 The Defence subsequently filed a further response to the Cross-Appellant’s Brief (“Defence’s Substituted Response to Cross-Appellant’s Brief”).19 The filing of this further brief was accepted by order of the Appeals Chamber on 4 March 1999.20
13. Skeleton arguments consolidating and clarifying the parties’ respective positions in relation to the Appeals were filed by both parties on 19 March 1999.21