UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No.: IT-96-21-A Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 20 February 2001 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: ENGLISH IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge David Hunt, Presiding Judge Fouad Riad Judge Rafael Nieto-Navia Judge Mohamed Bennouna Judge Fausto Pocar Registrar: Mr Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 20 February 2001 PROSECUTOR V Zejnil DELALIC, Zdravko MUCIC (aka “PAVO”), Hazim DELIC and Esad LANDŽO (aka “ZENGA”) (“^ELEBICI Case”) JUDGEMENT Counsel for the Accused: Mr John Ackerman and Ms Edina Rešidovi} for Zejnil Delalic Mr Tomislav Kuzmanovic and Mr Howard Morrison for Zdravko Mucic Mr Salih Karabdic and Mr Tom Moran for Hazim Delic Ms Cynthia Sinatra and Mr Peter Murphy for Esad Landžo The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr Upawansa Yapa Mr William Fenrick Mr Christopher Staker Mr Norman Farrell Ms Sonja Boelaert-Suominen Mr Roeland Bos CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 2 II. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO ARTICLE 2 OF THE STATUTE...................... 4 A. Whether the Trial Chamber Erred in Holding that the Armed Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Time Relevant to the Indictment was of an International Character..............................................................................4 1. What is the Applicable Law? .....................................................................................................................................................5 2. Has the Trial Chamber Applied the “Overall Control” Test? ........................................................................................... 10 3. The Nature of the Conflict Prior to 19 May 1992............................................................................................................... 11 4. The Nature of the Conflict After 19 May 1992................................................................................................................... 12 B. Whether the Bosnian Serbs Detained in the ^elebi}i Camp were Protected Persons Under Geneva Convention IV............................................................................................................................................................................... 16 1. What is the Applicable Law? .................................................................................................................................................. 17 2. Did the Trial Chamber Apply the Correct Legal Principles?............................................................................................ 25 3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 C. Whether Bosnia and Herzegovina was a Party to the Geneva Conventions at the Time of the Events Alleged in the Indictment.......................................................................................................................................................................... 31 III. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO ARTICLE 3 OF THE STATUTE .................. 34 A. Whether Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions Falls Within the Scope of Article 3 of the Statute...... 36 1. What is the Applicable Law? ................................................................................................................................................. 36 2. Did the Trial Chamber Follow the Tadi} Jurisdiction Decision? .................................................................................... 41 B. Whether Common Article 3 is Applicable to International Armed Conflicts ............................................................. 42 1. What is the Applicable Law? ................................................................................................................................................. 42 2. Did the Trial Chamber Follow the Tadi} Jurisdiction Decision? .................................................................................... 46 C. Whether Common Article 3 Imposes Individual Criminal Responsibility .................................................................. 46 1. What is the Applicable Law? ................................................................................................................................................. 46 2. Did the Trial Chamber Apply the Correct Legal Principles? ........................................................................................... 52 IV. GROUNDS OF APPEAL CONCERNING COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY .................. 54 A. The Ninth Ground of Appeal of Muci}................................................................................................................................... 54 1. De Facto Authority as a Basis for a Finding of Superior Responsibility in International Law................................. 55 2. The Trial Chamber’s Factual Findings................................................................................................................................. 59 3. Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................................. 60 4. Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................................. 64 B. The Prosecution Grounds of Appeal....................................................................................................................................... 64 1. Mental Element – “Knew or had Reason to Know” .......................................................................................................... 64 2. Whether Delali} Exercised Superior Responsibility.......................................................................................................... 73 3. Deli}’s Acquittal under Article 7(3)...................................................................................................................................... 96 V. UNLAWFUL CONFINEMENT OF CIVILIANS ................................................................. 105 A. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................105 i Case No.: IT-96-21-A 20 February 2001 B. The Prosecution appeals ...........................................................................................................................................................112 1. Article 7(3) Liability..............................................................................................................................................................112 2. Article 7(1) Liability..............................................................................................................................................................113 C. Muci}’s Appeal............................................................................................................................................................................125 D. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................................................131 VI. MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS BASED ON THE SAME ACTS......................................... 132 A. Discussion.....................................................................................................................................................................................135 1. Cumulative Charging.............................................................................................................................................................135 2. Cumulative Convictions........................................................................................................................................................135 B. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................................................144 C. Impact on Sentencing ................................................................................................................................................................146 VII. DELIC GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALLEGING ERRORS OF FACT ............................. 148 A. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................148 B. Issues 9 and 10: Convictions under Counts 1 and 2 .........................................................................................................149 C. Issues 11 and 12: Convictions Under Counts 3 and 4......................................................................................................156 D. Issues 13 and 14: Convictions Under Counts 18 and 19.................................................................................................165 E. Issues 15 and 16: Convictions under Counts 21 and 22.................................................................................................169