Appeal Judgement, Para

UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-98-32/1-A Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 4 December 2012 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Mehmet Güney, Presiding Judge Carmel Agius Judge Fausto Pocar Judge Liu Daqun Judge Howard Morrison Registrar: Mr. John Hocking Judgement of: 4 December 2012 PROSECUTOR v. MILAN LUKIĆ SREDOJE LUKIĆ PUBLIC JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Peter Kremer, QC Ms. Virginie Monchy Mr. Matthias Schuster Mr. Matthew Gillett Counsel for Milan Luki}: Counsel for Sredoje Luki}: Mr. Tomislav Vi{nji} Mr. \uro ^epi} Mr. Dragan Iveti} Mr. Jens Dieckmann Prof. G.G.J. Knoops, as Legal Consultant CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 A. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................1 B. THE APPEALS ...............................................................................................................................3 C. APPEAL HEARING .........................................................................................................................4 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................... 5 III. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL ................ 8 A. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................8 B. ADEQUATE TIME AND FACILITIES FOR PRE-TRIAL PREPARATION...................................................9 C. RESTRICTIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF MILAN LUKI}’S DEFENCE..................................................15 1. Limitation on the time available for cross-examination ........................................................16 2. Milan Luki}’s request to delay the commencement of the presentation of his case..............16 3. Alleged violations of Milan Luki}’s right to call witnesses ..................................................17 4. Milan Luki}’s request to recall Prosecution witnesses..........................................................19 5. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................21 D. UNDUE INFLUENCE ON WITNESSES BY THIRD PARTIES ................................................................21 E. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25 IV. MILAN LUKIĆ’S ALIBI FOR THE DRINA RIVER INCIDENT AND THE VARDA FACTORY INCIDENT ................................................................... 27 A. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................27 B. BURDEN OF PROOF OF ALIBI........................................................................................................27 C. ASSESSMENT OF MILAN LUKIĆ’S ALIBI ......................................................................................29 1. Alleged errors relating to Milan Luki}’s alibi witnesses.......................................................29 (a) Alleged errors in the consideration of allegations of bribery of Milan Luki}’s alibi witnesses ............................................................................................................................... 29 (b) Alleged errors in the rejection of alibi evidence based on minor inconsistencies ................. 31 2. Alleged errors in the assessment of the Prosecution’s alibi rebuttal evidence ......................36 (a) VG131 .................................................................................................................................... 36 (b) VG133.................................................................................................................................... 38 (c) VG141 .................................................................................................................................... 39 3. Alleged application of inconsistent standards in the assessment of the evidence of alibi witnesses compared to alibi rebuttal witnesses...................................................................40 4. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................41 D. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................41 V. IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE........................................................................ 42 A. “IDENTIFICATION” AND “RECOGNITION” WITNESSES ..................................................................42 B. IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION .........................................................................................................43 VI. DRINA RIVER INCIDENT .............................................................................. 44 A. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................44 B. IDENTIFICATION OF MILAN LUKIĆ..............................................................................................45 1. In-court identification ............................................................................................................45 2. Reliance on the evidence of an alleged accomplice...............................................................46 3. Alleged errors with regard to identification evidence............................................................47 4. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................52 C. PROOF OF DEATH ........................................................................................................................52 D. ALLEGED ERROR IN FINDING THAT MILAN LUKIĆ COMMITTED THE MURDERS ...........................55 i Case No. IT-98-32/1-A 4 December 2012 E. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................57 VII. VARDA FACTORY INCIDENT..................................................................... 58 A. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................58 B. CREDIBILITY...............................................................................................................................58 1. VG024....................................................................................................................................59 2. VG042 and VG017 ................................................................................................................60 3. Inconsistencies between the evidence of VG024 and VG042...............................................62 4. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................62 C. IDENTIFICATION OF MILAN LUKI} ..............................................................................................63 1. VG024....................................................................................................................................63 2. VG042....................................................................................................................................66 3. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................70 D. PROOF OF DEATH........................................................................................................................70 1. Absence of bodies and death certificates...............................................................................71 2. Alleged inconsistencies between the identification record and the autopsy report ...............72 3. Alleged inconsistencies between the dates on death certificates and the Varda Factory Incident................................................................................................................................73 4. Submission of request for the return of abandoned property by an alleged victim in 1999 and inconsistent witness evidence.......................................................................................75 5. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................75 E. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................75 VIII. KILLING OF HAJRA KORIĆ...................................................................... 76 A. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................76 B. CREDIBILITY...............................................................................................................................76 C. IDENTIFICATION OF MILAN LUKI} ..............................................................................................80 D. PROOF OF DEATH........................................................................................................................82

Load more