UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-06-90-A Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 16 November 2012 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Theodor Meron, Presiding Judge Carmel Agius Judge Patrick Robinson Judge Mehmet Güney Judge Fausto Pocar Registrar: Mr. John Hocking Judgement of: 16 November 2012 PROSECUTOR v. ANTE GOTOVINA MLADEN MARKAČ JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor Counsel for Ante Gotovina Ms. Helen Brady Mr. Gregory Kehoe Mr. Douglas Stringer Mr. Luka Mi{eti} Ms. Laurel Baig Mr. Payam Akhavan Mr. Francois Boudreault Mr. Guénaël Mettraux Ms. Ingrid Elliott Mr. Todd Schneider Counsel for Mladen Markač Ms. Saeeda Verrall Mr. Goran Mikuliči} Mr. Matthew Cross Mr. Tomislav Kuzmanović Mr. John Jones Mr. Kai Ambos CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 A. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................1 B. THE APPEALS ...............................................................................................................................3 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW..........................................................................................................4 III. ARGUMENTS ALLEGEDLY RAISED ONLY DURING THE APPEAL HEARING ......6 IV. UNLAWFUL ARTILLERY ATTACKS AND EXISTENCE OF A JCE (GOTOVINA GROUNDS 1 AND 3, IN PART; MARKAČ GROUNDS 1 AND 2, IN PART)....................8 A. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................8 B. SUBMISSIONS ..............................................................................................................................10 C. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................16 1. Notice.....................................................................................................................................16 2. The Lawfulness of Artillery Attacks on the Four Towns ......................................................17 (a) Impact Analysis...................................................................................................................... 17 (i) The 200 Metre Standard ..................................................................................................... 18 a. The Trial Chamber’s Findings......................................................................................... 18 b. Analysis........................................................................................................................... 20 (ii) Targets of Opportunity ...................................................................................................... 22 (iii) The Effect of the Trial Chamber’s Errors......................................................................... 23 (b) Other Evidence of Unlawful Artillery Attacks ...................................................................... 24 (i) The Trial Chamber’s Additional Findings on the Unlawfulness of the Attacks................. 25 a. The 2 August Order and its Implementation ................................................................... 25 b. Other Evidence................................................................................................................ 26 (ii) Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 26 3. Attribution of Liability Via JCE ............................................................................................29 (a) The Trial Chamber’s Relevant Findings ................................................................................ 30 (b) Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 31 D. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................34 V. CONVICTIONS UNDER ALTERNATE FORMS OF LIABILITY (GOTOVINA GROUNDS 1, 2, AND 4, IN PART, AND MARKAČ GROUNDS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, AND 9, IN PART) ...................................................................................................................................35 A. THE APPEALS CHAMBER ’S JURISDICTION TO ENTER CONVICTIONS UNDER ALTERNATE MODES OF LIABILITY ...............................................................................................................35 1. Submissions ...........................................................................................................................35 2. Analysis..................................................................................................................................36 B. THE TRIAL CHAMBER ’S REMAINING FINDINGS AND THE APPELLANTS ’ LIABILITY ....................39 1. The Appellants’ Liability for Artillery Shelling....................................................................39 2. Additional Trial Chamber Findings Regarding Gotovina’s Actions .....................................40 (a) Background ............................................................................................................................ 40 (b) Submissions ........................................................................................................................... 41 (c) Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 44 (d) Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 48 3. Additional Trial Chamber Findings Regarding Markač’s Actions........................................48 (a) Background ............................................................................................................................ 48 (b) Submissions ........................................................................................................................... 49 (c) Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 51 (d) Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 54 Case No. IT-06-90-A 16November 2012 VI. DISPOSITION...........................................................................................................................55 VII. SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE THEODOR MERON...................................................1 VIII. DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CARMEL AGIUS ...................................................1 A. UNLAWFUL ARTILLERY ATTACKS AND EXISTENCE OF A JCE......................................................1 1. 200 Metre Standard..................................................................................................................2 2. Targets of Opportunity...........................................................................................................10 3. Other Evidence of Unlawful Artillery Attacks ......................................................................12 (a) The 2 August Order................................................................................................................ 12 (b) HV Units’ Implementation of the 2 August Order................................................................. 13 (c) Evidence from Witnesses on the Shelling of Knin................................................................. 14 (d) Brioni Meeting ....................................................................................................................... 15 (e) Evidence Regarding the Proportionality of Artillery Attacks Aimed at Marti}’s Residence 15 4. Conclusion on the Unlawfulness of the Artillery Attacks .....................................................16 5. JCE.........................................................................................................................................17 B. ALTERNATE MODES OF LIABILITY .............................................................................................18 1. Gotovina.................................................................................................................................18 (a) Findings on Gotovina’s Failure to Take Additional Measures .............................................. 19 (b) Witness Jones......................................................................................................................... 22 (c) Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 23 2. Markač ...................................................................................................................................24 (a) Superior Responsibility .......................................................................................................... 25 (b) Aiding and Abetting............................................................................................................... 27 (c) Majority’s Refusal to Analyse Remaining Findings .............................................................