• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-01-47-A Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 22 April 2008 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Fausto Pocar, Presiding Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen Judge Mehmet Güney Judge Liu Daqun Judge Theodor Meron Registrar: Mr. Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 22 April 2008 PROSECUTOR v. ENVER HADŽIHASANOVIĆ AMIR KUBURA PUBLIC JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Peter Kremer Ms. Shelagh McCall Mr. Marwan Dalal Mr. Xavier Tracol Ms. Barbara Goy Mr. Steffen Wirth Ms. Katharina Margetts Mr. Matteo Costi Counsel for the Defence: Ms. Edina Rešidović and Mr. Stéphane Bourgon for Enver Hadžihasanović Mr. Fahrudin Ibrišimović and Mr. Rodney Dixon for Amir Kubura I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 II. STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW.................................................................................3 III. ARTICLE 7(3) OF THE STATUTE: APPLICABLE LAW...................................................8 A. WHETHER DE JURE POWER OVER SUBORDINATES CREATES A PRESUMPTION OF EFFECTIVE CONTROL ....................................................................................................................................8 B. THE “HAD REASON TO KNOW” STANDARD AND THE SUPERIOR’S DUTY TO PREVENT THE RECURRENCE OF SIMILAR ACTS ................................................................................................10 1. Arguments of the Parties........................................................................................................10 2. Discussion..............................................................................................................................11 C. THE SCOPE OF A SUPERIOR’S DUTY TO PUNISH............................................................................14 D. THE CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN A COMMANDER’S FAILURE TO ACT AND HIS SUBORDINATES’ CRIMES .....................................................................................................................................15 IV. FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL AND EVIDENTIARY ISSUES..............................................18 A. PRELIMINARY ISSUE ...................................................................................................................18 B. ISSUES REGARDING THE TRIAL CHAMBER’S RULE 98BIS DECISION ............................................19 1. Rule 98bis of the Rules..........................................................................................................20 2. Redundancy of legal sufficiency test in an appeal against judgement...................................20 3. Whether the Trial Chamber erred in law in its Rule 98bis Decision by deciding not to consider evidence favourable to Had`ihasanovi} ...............................................................21 4. Alleged lack of evidence in the Rule 98bis Decision concerning Had`ihasanovi}’s failure to take necessary and reasonable measures to punish his subordinates ..............................23 (a) Whether Witness Hackshaw’s evidence was the sole evidence on the record at the conclusion of the Prosecution case regarding Hadžihasanović’s failure to punish crimes... 24 (b) Whether Witness Hackshaw’s evidence was “inadmissible evidence” ................................. 25 (c) Whether the Trial Chamber’s finding that Witness Hackshaw’s conclusions had no probative value should have been drawn immediately following his testimony .................. 26 5. Alleged lack of evidence in the Rule 98bis Decision concerning events in Bugojno ...........27 6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................28 C. WITNESS HACKSHAW’S INVESTIGATION CONCERNING FAILURE TO TAKE NECESSARY AND REASONABLE MEASURES TO PUNISH THE CRIME OF MURDER ....................................................28 D. ALLEGED APPREHENSION OF BIAS THROUGH THE JUDGES’ QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES............30 1. Alleged incorrect treatment of witnesses...............................................................................31 (a) Had`ihasanovi}’s request that Witness Merdan testify as one of the first witnesses............. 31 (b) Allegation of intimidation...................................................................................................... 33 (c) Amount of time Witness Merdan was asked questions by the Trial Chamber ...................... 33 (d) Video of the testimony of Witness Merdan of 15 and 16 December 2004............................ 33 (e) Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 34 2. Alleged insufficient time for Witness Merdan to answer Judges’ questions.........................34 3. Whether the Judges had a pre-conceived opinion on the credibility of witnesses.................34 (a) The Presiding Judge’s remarks to Witness Merdan ............................................................... 35 (b) Allegation that a Judge openly stated that Witness Merdan was not truthful........................ 36 (c) Witness Šiljak......................................................................................................................... 37 (d) Witness Ja{arevi} ................................................................................................................... 37 (e) Witness Mesi} ........................................................................................................................ 38 (f) Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 38 4. Allegation that the Judges gave the impression of assisting the Prosecution........................38 (a) Witness Baggesen .................................................................................................................. 39 (b) Witness Reinhardt.................................................................................................................. 40 (c) Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 41 5. Whether there still remains an appearance of partiality, even if Had`ihasanovi} had the right to question the witnesses last......................................................................................41 E. EVIDENCE ADMITTED AFTER THE PRESENTATION OF THE DEFENCE CASE: EXHIBITS C11-C20...42 1. Arguments of the Parties........................................................................................................42 2. Discussion..............................................................................................................................43 F. ADMISSION OF EXHIBIT P482 AND ITS PROBATIVE VALUE ..........................................................46 G. ARMED CONFLICT IN THE TERRITORY OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA .......................................47 H. ACCESS TO THE EUMM ARCHIVES.............................................................................................48 1. Arguments of the Parties........................................................................................................48 2. Discussion..............................................................................................................................50 V. HADŽIHASANOVIĆ’S INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AS A SUPERIOR ................................................................................................................................53 A. MURDER AND CRUEL TREATMENT IN BUGOJNO AS OF AUGUST 1993........................................53 1. Measures taken to punish the perpetrators of the crimes committed on 5 August 1993 at the Slavonija Furniture Salon..............................................................................................53 (a) The extent of the measures taken to punish the perpetrators of the 5 August 1993 Slavonija Furniture Salon crimes..........................................................................................................54 (b) Whether the measures taken by Hadžihasanović were necessary and reasonable................. 59 2. Hadžihasanović’s knowledge of the acts of mistreatment committed as of 18 August 1993 in the Bugojno Detention Facilities.....................................................................................61 B. CRUEL TREATMENT AT THE ZENICA MUSIC SCHOOL FROM MAY TO SEPTEMBER 1993 .............64 1. Whether the Trial Chamber erred in its appreciation of the evidence ...................................65 (a) Evidence provided by Witnesses D`emal Merdan and HF.................................................... 65 (b) Evidence related to the concealment of prisoners held at the Zenica Music School ............. 66 2. Whether the Trial Chamber erred in assessing whether the measures taken by Hadžihasanović were necessary and reasonable .................................................................67 (a) The basis of Hadžihasanović’s knowledge ............................................................................ 68 (b) Whether the measures taken by Hadžihasanović were necessary and reasonable................. 69 C. MURDER AND CRUEL TREATMENT IN ORAŠAC IN OCTOBER 1993..............................................71

Load more

  153

Copy Link