IT-04-74-A 17811 A17811 - A17633 29 July 2015 MB THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA Case No. IT-04-74-A Original: English APPEALS CHAMBER Before : Judge Theodor Meron, Presiding Judge Carmel Agius Judge Fausto Pocar Judge Liu Daqun Judge Bakone Justice Moloto Registrar : Mr. John Hocking Filed: 29 July 2015 THE PROSECUTOR v. JADRANKO PRLI Ć BRUNO STOJI Ć SLOBODAN PRALJAK MILIVOJ PETKOVI Ć VALENTIN ĆORI Ć BERISLAV PUŠI Ć PUBLIC _______________________________________________________ NOTICE OF FILING OF REVISED PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION OF SLOBODAN PRALJAK’S APPEAL BRIEF WITH ANNEXES ___________________________________________ The Office of the Prosecutor Mr Douglas Stringer Ms Laurel Baig Ms Barbara Goy Counsel for the Accused: Mr Michael Karnavas and Ms Suzana Tomanovi ć for Jadranko Prli ć Ms Senka Nožica and Mr Karim A. A. Khan for Bruno Stoji ć Ms Nika Pinter and Ms Natacha Fauveau Ivanovic for Slobodan Praljak Ms Vesna Alaburi ć and Mr Guénaël Mettraux for Milivoj Petkovi ć Ms Dijana Tomašegovi ć-Tomi ć and Mr Dražen Plavec for Valentin Ćori ć Mr Fahrudin Ibrišimovi ć and Mr Roger Sahota for Berislav Puši ć IT-04-74-A 17810 1 NOTICE OF FILING OF REVISED PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION OF SLOBODAN PRALJAK’S APPEAL BRIEF WITH ANNEXES In accordance with the Appeals Chamber Decision (the “Decision”)1, Slobodan Praljak Defence (the “Defence”) files the Revised Public Redacted Version 2 of its Appeal Brief with Annexes 3. The redactions have been made, according to directions indicated in Decision and after consultations with the Prosecution, in order to protect confidential information (identity of protected witnesses and content of confidential documents). Respectfully submitted, By Nika Pinter and Natacha Fauveau Ivanovic Counsel for the Accused Slobodan Praljak Word Count: 155 1 Decision on the Prosecution Urgent Motion to Reclassify Public Briefs and Modify the Public Redacted Briefing Schedule, issued on 8 July 2015; 2 Annex, Revised Public Redacted Version of Slobodan Praljak’s Appeal Brief with Annexes; 3 Slobodak Praljak’s Appeal Brief with Annexes filed confidentially on 12 January 2015. Case No. IT-04-74-A Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prli ć, et al. 29 July 2015 IT-04-74-A 17809 Public ANNEX Case No. IT-04-74-A Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prli ć, et al. 29 July 2015 IT-04-74-A 17808 THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA Case No. IT-04-74-A Original: English APPEALS CHAMBER Before : Judge Theodor Meron, Presiding Judge Carmel Agius Judge Fausto Pocar Judge Liu Daqun Judge Bakone Justice Moloto Registrar : Mr. John Hocking Filed: 12 January 2015 THE PROSECUTOR v. JADRANKO PRLI Ć BRUNO STOJI Ć SLOBODAN PRALJAK MILIVOJ PETKOVI Ć VALENTIN ĆORI Ć BERISLAV PUŠI Ć PUBLIC _______________________________________________________ SLOBODAN PRALJAK’S REVISED PUBLIC REDACTED APPEAL BRIEF WITH ANNEXES ___________________________________________ The Office of the Prosecutor Mr Douglas Stringer Mr Mathias Marcussen Counsel for the Accused: Mr Michael Karnavas and Ms Suzana Tomanovi ć for Jadranko Prli ć Ms Senka Nožica and Mr Karim A. A. Khan for Bruno Stoji ć Ms Nika Pinter and Ms Natacha Fauveau Ivanovic for Slobodan Praljak Ms Vesna Alaburi ć and Mr Guénaël Mettraux for Milivoj Petkovi ć Ms Dijana Tomašegovi ć-Tomi ć and Mr Dražen Plavec for Valentin Ćori ć Mr Fahrudin Ibrišimovi ć and Mr Roger Sahota for Berislav Puši ć IT-04-74-A 17807 1 Public SLOBODAN PRALJAK’S REVISED PUBLIC REDACTED APPEAL BRIEF WITH ANNEXES I. INTRODUCTION 1. On 29-05-2013, the TC rendered its Judgment in Case n°IT-04-74, the Prosecutor v. Slobodan Praljak (the “Judgment”). The TC found Praljak (the “Accused”) guilty of the following crimes: - Persecutions, a CAH pursuant to Art.5(h) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-1); - Murder, a CAH pursuant to Art.5(a) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-2); - Willful killing, a grave breach of the GC, pursuant to Art.2 (a) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-3); - Deportation, a CAH pursuant to Art.5(d) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-6); - Unlawful deportation of a civilian, a grave breach of the GC, pursuant to Art.2(g) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-7); - Inhumane acts (forcible transfer), a CAH pursuant to Art.5(i) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-8); - Unlawful transfer of a civilian, a grave breach of the GC, pursuant to articles 2(g) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-9); - Imprisonment, a CAH, pursuant to Art.5(e) and 7.1 of the Statute of the Tribunal (Count-10); - Unlawful confinement of a civilian, a grave breach of the GC, pursuant to Art.2(g) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-11); - Inhumane acts (conditions of confinement), a CAH, pursuant to Art.5(i) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-12); - Inhuman treatment (conditions of confinement), a grave breach of the GC, pursuant to Art.2(b) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-13); - Inhumane acts, CAH, pursuant to Art.5(i) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-15); Case No. IT-04-74-A Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prli ć, et al. 12 January 2015 IT-04-74-A 17806 2 Public - Inhuman treatment, a grave breach of the GC pursuant to Art.2(b) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-16); - Unlawful labor, a VLCW, pursuant to Art.3 and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-18); - extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, a grave breach of the GC pursuant to Art.2(d) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-19); - destruction or willful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion or education, a VLCW, pursuant to Art.3(d) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-21); - appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, a grave breach of the GC pursuant to Art.2(d) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-22); - plunder of public or private property, a VLCW, pursuant to Art.3(e) and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-23); - unlawful attack on civilians, a VLCW, pursuant to Art.3 and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-24); and - unlawful infliction of terror on civilians, a VLCW of war, pursuant to Art.3 and 7.1 of the Statute (Count-25).1 2. The TC sentenced the Accused to a single term of 20-year imprisonment sentence.2 3. On 28-06-2013, the Praljak Defence (the “Defence”) filed the Notice of Appeal. 4. In light of the errors identified in its Notice and pursuant to Art.25 of the Statute and R.111 of the Rules, the Defence files this Appeal Brief. 5. All errors of law indicated in this Brief are of such nature and importance that they render the Judgment invalid. All references to general principles of law comprise the presumption of innocence, in dubio pro reo and onus probandi incombit actori. Whenever the TC acted in violation of general principles of law it also acted in violation of Art.21.3 and 23.2 of the Statute and of R.87(A) of the Rules. 1 J,Disposition,Vol-IV,p.446; 2 J,Disposition,Vol-IV,pp.446-447; Case No. IT-04-74-A Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prli ć, et al. 12 January 2015 IT-04-74-A 17805 3 Public 6. All errors of fact indicated in this Brief led to a denial of justice. Due to these errors, the TC drew erroneous conclusions which no trier of fact could have reasonably reached on the basis of the evidence on the record. II. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 1st Ground: Errors related to the IAC 7. All errors indicated in this Ground render the conviction of the Accused pursuant to Art.2 of the Statute null and void. For all the reasons set forth in the 1 st Ground, the Judgment should be reversed on Count-3, Count-7, Count-9, Count-11, Count-13, Count-16, Count-19 and Count-22 and Praljak should be acquitted of these charges. 1.1. The TC made an error of fact when it concluded that the south front mentioned in documents issued by the HV 3 covered a part of the HZ(R)H-B4 8. The TC omitted to consider that during the period, covered by the Indictment, the Croatia was in war and that southern part of its territory was cut from the rest of the Croatian territory and under constant threat from Serbian forces. Therefore, the TC failed to acknowledge that the southern front covered the Croatian territory situated in coastal area south of Split and spreading from Split to Dubrovnik and Prevlaka. 5 9. While the HV units were sometimes obliged to use border areas in BiH, they did it with the sole purpose to defend the territory of the RC,6 the territory which they naturally and legitimately defended. 7 The objective of these actions was to mount a defence against the VRS/JNA/JA and not to launch an attack on Bosnian population (Muslim/Serbian), since the frontline was in Dubrovnik. 8 10. The Croatian territory in the area of southern front is so narrow, with 5-kilometer average wide, that any military intervention, limited to the Croatian territory, was almost impossible. 9 3 P03677, P11033; 4 J.Vol-III,para.529; 5 Praljak,T.41628,T.43014,T.44546; SkenderT.45254; BenetaT.46698; JasakT.48632; 6 BenetaT.46564,T.46668-46669; Praljak,T.39877,T.41821, PetkovicT.49302; 7 PraljakT.43014; 8 J.Vol-VI,Diss.Op,p.10; 9 BenetaT.46572,T.46573; PraljakT.39877; Case No.