Decision on Second Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ir--qlj- 5" /4fJ-P r }) .2,5'.33 ~]) .25"I.fIB UNITED Oq OG ro8~ R.. LOO" NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No.: IT -95-51l8-PT Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Date: 9 October 2009 Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER Before: Judge O-Gon Kwon, Presiding Judge Howard Morrison Judge Melville Baird Judge Flavia Lattanzi, Reserve Judge Registrar: Mr. John Hocking Decision of: 9 October 2009 PROSECUTOR v. RADOVAN KARADZIC PUBLIC DECISION ON SECOND PROSECUTION MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATED FACTS Office of the Prosecutor Mr. Alan Tieger Ms. Hildegard Vertz-Retzlaff The Accused Mr. Radovan Karadzi6 THIS TRIAL CHAMBER of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("Tribunal") is seised of the "Second Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts and Corrigendum to First Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts", filed on 17 March 2009 ("Motion"), and the "Corrigendum to Second Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts", filed on 27 July 2009 ("Corrigendum"), and hereby renders its decision thereon. I. Background and Submissions I. The Motion was preceded by the "First Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts", filed on 27 October 2008 ("First Motion"), and followed by the "Third Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts", filed on 7 April 2009 ("Third Motion"). On 5 June 2009, the Chamber rendered its "Decision on First Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts" ("First Decision on Adjudicated Facts"), granting the First Motion in part, and taking judicial notice of 302 out of 337 facts proposed by the Office of the Prosecutor ("Prosecution") in its First Motion. l Similarly, on 9 July 2009, the Chamber issued its "Decision on Third Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts" ("Third Decision on Adjudicated Facts"), accepting 466 out of 497 facts proposed by the Prosecution in its Third Motion.2 2. In the Motion, the Prosecution requests that the Chamber exercise its power under Rule 94(B) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules") to take judicial notice of facts set out in Appendix A, which is divided into three sections. The first section relates to the historical background to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina ("BiH"). The second section deals with the Yugoslav National Army ("JNA"), covering its structure, organisation, and engagement in the conflicts in Slovenia, Croatia, and BiH; the Bosnian Serb Army ("VRS") and the Bosnian Serb Ministry ofthe Interior ("MOP"), addressing their formation and structure; and the Serbian MUP, covering the assistance provided by this institution to local Serb forces in Croatia. The third section relates to events in the municipalities of Banja Luka, Bosanska Krupa, Bosanski Novi, Bosanski Petrovac, Donji Vakuf, Foca, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor, Sanski Most, and Visegrad during the time relevant to the Indictment, and further deals with institutions of the Autonomous Region of Krajina ("ARK"), and with events that occurred across the ARK in the aforementioned period of time. I First Decision on Adjudicated Facts, S June 2009, para. 39. 2 Third Decision on Adjudicated Facts, 9 July 2009, para. 63. Case No. IT-95-5118-PT 2 9 October 2009 3. The facts proposed in the Motion have been adjudicated by Trial and Appeals Chambers in several cases, such as Blagojevie and Jokie, Braanin, Krnojelac, Kunarac et at., Kvocka et ai., Martie, MrkSie, Tadie, and Vasiljevie et al. 3 The Prosecution incorporates by reference its submissions in the First Motion concerning the legal requirements to be met before judicial notice can be taken of an adjudicated fact.4 It then submits that the adjudicated facts listed in Appendix A to the Motion meet the requirements set out in relevant Tribunal jurisprudence, and that taking judicial notice of those facts would achieve judicial economy while preserving the Accused's right to a fair, public, and expeditious trial.5 4. Specifically, the Prosecution argues that certain proposed facts in the second section of Appendix A, although pertaining to events in Croatia, are nevertheless relevant to the current case, and stresses that the facts in question: (1) show the continued pattern of participation of troops and individuals of the Serbian MUP and the JNA in the take-over of targeted areas in Croatia and BiH; (2) provide evidence of the continued participation of officials of these institutions in a Joint Criminal Enterprise ("JCE") to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory in BiH; and (3) show the integration of "paramilitary/volunteer groups", such as those associated with Zeljko Rainatovic or Vojislav Seselj, into the regular Serb forces' war effort.6 5. Similarly, the Prosecution acknowledges that the third section of Appendix A contains proposed facts which do not relate to events specifically charged in the Indictment, but submits that these facts are nevertheless relevant to the current proceedings, as they demonstrate a pattern of conduct proving the implementation of a JCE to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory in BiB. 6. On 14 April 2009, the Accused filed his "Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 2nd and 3rd Motions for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts" ("Motion for Extension of Time"), requesting an extension oftime until 21 January 2010 to respond to the Motion and to the Third Motion, and arguing that the sheer volume of both motions made it impossible for him to 3 See Prosecutor v. Blagojevie and Jokie, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Judgement, 17 January 2005 ("Blagojevie Trial Judgement"); Prosecutor v. Braanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement, 1 September 2004 ("Brdanin Trial Judgement"); Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Judgement, 15 March 2002 ("Krnojelac Trial Judgement"); Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., Case No. IT-96-23-T&IT-96-23/1-T, Judgement, 22 February 2001 ("Kunarac Trial Judgement"); Prosecutor v. Kvocka et aI., Case No. IT-98-301l-T, Judgement, 2 November 2001 ("Kvocka Trial Judgement"); Prosecutor v. Martie, Case No. IT-95-11-T, Judgement, 12 June 2007 ("Martie Trial Judgement"); Prosecutor v. MrkSie, Case No. IT-95-13I1-T, Judgement, 27 September 2007 ("MrkSie Trial Judgement"); Prosecutor v. Tadie, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgement, 7 May 1997 ("Tadie Trial Judgement"); and Prosecutor v. Vasiljevie et aI. , Case No. IT-98-32-T, Judgement, 29 November 2002 ("Vasiljevie Trial Judgement"). 4 Motion, para. 4; see also First Motion, paras. 3-4, 6, 8. 5 Motion, para. 3. Case No. IT-9S-SIl8-PT 3 9 October 2009 .2,5"530 respond adequately within the normal fourteen day limit.7 On 16 April 2009, the Prosecution filed its "Prosecution Response to Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 2nd and 3rd Motions for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts", opposing the Motion for Extension of Time, and arguing that the Accused had "failed to show good cause for his request in accordance with Rule 127(A)(i) of the Rules" by failing to provide specific justification for the alleged time extension.8 On 17 April 2009, the pre-trial Judge issued a "Decision on Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Second and Third Motions for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts" ("Decision on Motion for Extension of Time"), considering it to be in the interests of justice and sound pre-trial management to grant an extension of time, but finding that a much shorter period of time than that requested by the Accused would suffice. He then ordered the Accused to submit his response to the Motion no later than 30 June 2009.9 7. At the Status Conference held on 3 June 2009, the Accused indicated that, although the B/c/S translation of the Motion should have been provided to him on or before 6 May 2009, he had not received it yet. 10 Noting that the deadline fixed in the Decision on Motion for Extension of Time was based on the expectation that the BICIS translation would be ready by 6 May 2009, the pre-trial Judge granted the Accused an additional extension of time to respond to the Motion up until 14 July 2009. 11 However, on 1 July 2009, the pre-trial Judge filed an "Order for Response to Second Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts and Corrigendum to First Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts" noting that, even though the Accused had received the B/c/S translation to the Motion in the meantime, he had not yet begun to prepare his response thereto, and that it was in the interests of good case management to give the Accused another extension of time to respond to the Motion. He therefore ordered the Accused to file his response to the Motion no later than 27 July 2009. 8. On 22 July 2009, the Accused filed his "Response to Second Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts" ("Response") opposing the Motion, and incorporating by reference the arguments raised in his responses to the First Motion12 and to the Third Motion. 13 6 Motion, para. 2. 7 Motion for Extension of Time, paras. 3-4. nd 8 Prosecution Response to Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 2 and 3'd Motions for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts, 16 April 2009, paras. 1-2. 9 Decision on Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Second and Third Motions for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts, 17 April 2009, paras.