UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-95-11-A Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 8 October 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 Andrésia Vaz Judge Wolfgang Schomburg Registrar: Mr Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 8 October 2008 PROSECUTOR v. MILAN MARTIĆ PUBLIC JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Ms Michelle Jarvis Mr Paul Rogers Ms Laurel Baig Ms Kristina Carey Ms Nicole Lewis Ms Najwa Nabti Counsel for Milan Martić: Mr Predrag Milovančević Mr Nikola Perović CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 A. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................1 B. THE APPEAL .................................................................................................................................3 II. APPELLATE REVIEW...............................................................................................................4 A. STANDARD FOR APPELLATE REVIEW.............................................................................................4 B. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY DISMISSAL..........................................................................................6 1. Challenges to factual findings on which a conviction does not rely........................................7 2. Arguments that fail to identify the challenged factual findings, that misrepresent the factual findings, or that ignore other relevant factual findings .............................................7 3. Mere assertions that the Trial Chamber failed to give sufficient weight to evidence or failed to interpret evidence in a particular manner................................................................8 4. Mere assertions unsupported by any evidence.........................................................................8 5. Arguments that challenge a Trial Chamber’s reliance or failure to rely on one piece of evidence.................................................................................................................................8 III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A REASONED OPINION FROM THE TRIAL CHAMBER (MILAN MARTIĆ’S FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL).....................10 A. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................10 B. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES .....................................................................................................10 C. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................11 D. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................13 IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS TO BE TRIED BY AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL AND PRESUMED INNOCENT (MILAN MARTIĆ’S SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL) ..........................................................................................................14 A. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................14 B. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES .....................................................................................................14 C. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................16 1. Alleged violation of Martić’s right to be presumed innocent................................................16 2. Alleged violation of Martić’s right to be tried before an impartial tribunal ..........................17 D. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................19 V. ALLEGED ERROR OF LAW CONCERNING THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE (MILAN MARTI]’S THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL).......................................................20 A. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................20 B. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES .....................................................................................................20 C. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................22 1. Interpretation of “beyond reasonable doubt”.........................................................................22 2. Corroboration of witness testimony.......................................................................................24 D. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25 VI. ALLEGED ERROR OF LAW IN THE APPLICATION OF THE JCE THEORY (MILAN MARTIĆ’S FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL)...................................................26 A. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................26 B. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES .....................................................................................................27 C. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................29 D. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................31 Case No.: IT-95-11-A ii 8 October 2008 VII. ALLEGED ERRORS OF FACT IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER’S FINDINGS ON JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE (MILAN MARTIĆ’S FIFTH GROUND OF APPEAL)....................................................................................................................................32 A. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................32 B. ALLEGED ERRORS REGARDING THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLES 3 AND 5 OF THE STATUTE ..................................................................................................................................32 1. Arguments of the Parties........................................................................................................32 2. Discussion..............................................................................................................................33 C. ALLEGED ERRORS REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE JCE .......................................................34 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................34 2. Alleged errors regarding the armed attack on Kijevo............................................................35 (a) Arguments of the parties ........................................................................................................ 35 (b) Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 35 3. Alleged errors regarding the ultimatum by Marti} in relation to the attack on Kijevo .........36 (a) Arguments of the parties ........................................................................................................ 37 (b) Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 38 4. Alleged errors in failing to reach findings on the background and in reaching findings on the political objectives of the Serb leadership.....................................................................39 (a) Arguments of the parties ........................................................................................................ 39 (b) Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 40 5. Alleged errors regarding the participation of members of the JCE in a common criminal purpose ................................................................................................................................41 D. ALLEGED ERRORS REGARDING MARTI}’S PARTICIPATION IN THE JCE .......................................42 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................42 2. Alleged errors regarding the common purpose of the JCE....................................................43 (a) Arguments of the Parties........................................................................................................ 43 (b) Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 44 3. Alleged error regarding Marti}’s cooperation with other JCE Participants ..........................45 (a) Arguments of the Parties........................................................................................................ 45 (b) Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 46 4. Alleged error regarding Marti}’s radio speeches...................................................................46