MICT-13-55-A 2313 A2313 - A2081 23 December 2016 SF THE MECHANISM FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS No. MICT-13-55-A IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Theodor Meron Judge William Hussein Sekule Judge Vagn Prusse Joensen Judge Jose Ricardo de Prada Solaesa Judge Graciela Susana Gatti Santana Registrar: Mr John Hocking Date Filed: 23 December 2016 THE PROSECUTOR v. RADOVAN KARADZIC Revised Public Redacted Version RADOVAN KARADZIC’S APPEAL BRIEF ________________________________________________________________________ Office of the Prosecutor: Laurel Baig Barbara Goy Katrina Gustafson Counsel for Radovan Karadzic Peter Robinson Kate Gibson No. MICT-13-55-A 2312 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4 II. THE TRIAL WAS UNFAIR.......................................................................................... 5 1. The Trial Chamber violated President Karadzic’s right to self-representation by requiring him to be questioned by counsel when testifying ............................................. 5 2. The Trial Chamber erred in conducting a site visit in President Karadzic’s absence... 9 3-5. The Trial Chamber erred in convicting President Karadzic on Counts Four, Seven, and Eleven where the Indictment was defective ............................................................. 13 6. The Trial Chamber’s failure to limit the scope of the trial and remedy the Prosecution’s disclosure violations made the trial unfair ............................................... 17 7. The Trial Chamber erred in taking judicial notice of adjudicated facts ..................... 31 8-9. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to enable President Karadzic to interview Prosecution Rule 92 bis witnesses .................................................................................. 38 10. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to call Prosecution Rule 92 bis witness Ferid Spahic for cross-examination .......................................................................................... 42 11-12. The Trial Chamber erred in excluding Defence Rule 92 bis evidence ................ 45 13. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to admit written evidence from Pero Rendic and Branko Basara .......................................................................................................... 58 14. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to admit the written evidence of Borivoje Jakovljevic ...................................................................................................................... 62 15. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to admit the written evidence of deceased witness Rajko Koprivica ................................................................................................. 65 16. The excessive number of adjudicated facts and Rule 92 bis evidence violated the presumption of innocence and shifted the burden of proof ............................................ 68 17. The Trial Chamber erred in delaying disclosure of the identities and statements of Prosecution witnesses ..................................................................................................... 72 18. The Trial Chamber erred in denying protective measures for Defence witnesses and granting protective measures for Prosecution witnesses ................................................ 75 19. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to subpoena four Defence witnesses .............. 82 20. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to compel General Mladic to answer President Karadzic’s questions ....................................................................................................... 88 21. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to assign counsel to Defence Witness Predrag Banovic ........................................................................................................................... 93 22. The Trial Chamber erred in admitting evidence of illegally intercepted telephone conversations................................................................................................................... 95 23. The Trial Chamber erred in admitting the testimony of war correspondents without a valid waiver of the privilege ...................................................................................... 103 24. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to recognise the parliamentary privilege ...... 107 25. The Trial Chamber erred in excluding Defence evidence under the tu quoque principle ........................................................................................................................ 111 26. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to hear the testimony of General Radivoje Miletic ........................................................................................................................... 118 No. MICT-13-55-A 2 2311 27. The Trial Chamber erred when one of its judges deliberated on the credibility of a person with whom he was associated ........................................................................... 123 III. THE MUNICIPALITIES .......................................................................................... 127 28. The Trial Chamber erred in finding that there was a common plan to permanently remove Muslims and Croats from Serb territory to create a homogeneous entity ....... 127 29. There are cogent reasons to hold that for JCE III liability, the extended crime must be more than a possibility ............................................................................................. 143 30. The Trial Chamber erred when convicting President Karadzic of persecution by forcible transfer of prisoners—a crime not charged in the indictment ......................... 151 31. The Trial Chamber erred when convicting President Karadzic of scheduled incidents based solely on untested evidence ................................................................. 153 IV. SARAJEVO .............................................................................................................. 157 33. The Trial Chamber misapplied principles of the law of armed conflict in its analysis of the shelling of Sarajevo ............................................................................................ 157 34. The Trial Chamber erred when concluding that the VRS fired the shell that landed on the Markale market on 5 February 1994 .................................................................. 166 36-37. The Trial Chamber erred when finding that President Karadzic shared the common purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population of Sarajevo and in relying on a meeting that never occurred ...................................................................... 174 V. SREBRENICA ........................................................................................................... 182 38-39. The Trial Chamber erred when finding that President Karadzic shared the common purpose of removing the Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica and when relying on Directive 7 ................................................................................................................ 182 40. The Trial Chamber erred when concluding that President Karadzic agreed to the killing of Bosnian Muslim males from Srebrenica and shared the common purpose of eliminating them ........................................................................................................... 189 41. The Trial Chamber erred when concluding that President Karadzic had the mens rea for genocide .................................................................................................................. 204 42-43. The Trial Chamber erred in finding President Karadzic responsible as a superior for 13 July killings ........................................................................................................ 213 VI. HOSTAGE TAKING ............................................................................................... 219 44-45. The Trial Chamber erred in convicting President Karadzic of hostage taking.. 219 46. The Trial Chamber erred in finding that there is an absolute prohibition of reprisals against protected persons .............................................................................................. 225 VII. SENTENCING ........................................................................................................ 230 47-50. The Trial Chamber erred in declining to find mitigating circumstances when sentencing President Karadzic ...................................................................................... 230 VIII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 233 No. MICT-13-55-A 3 2310 I. INTRODUCTION 1. President Radovan Karadzic made his initial appearance on 31 July 2008, invoking his right to self-representation.1 The Pre-Trial Judge entered a not guilty plea on 29 August 2008.2 Trial began on 27 October 2009,3 and ended on 7 October 2014.4 On 24 March 2016, the Trial Chamber convicted President Karadzic of ten counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, acquitted him of one count of genocide, and sentenced him to 40 years imprisonment.5 This is his appeal. 2. President Karadzic recognises that an appeal is not a trial de novo. He has limited his appeal to alleging errors of law by the Trial Chamber that, individually or cumulatively invalidate the judgement, and errors of fact that have