UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-95-14/2-A Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 17 December 2004 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Wolfgang Schomburg, Presiding Judge Fausto Pocar Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba Judge Mehmet Güney Judge Inés Mónica Weinberg de Roca Registrar: Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 17 December 2004 PROSECUTOR v. DARIO KORDI] AND MARIO ^ERKEZ JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Norman Farrell Ms. Helen Brady Ms. Marie-Ursula Kind and Ms. Michelle Jarvis Counsel for Dario Kordić: Mr. Mitko Naumovski, Mr. Turner T. Smith, Jr. and Mr. Stephen M. Sayers Counsel for Mario Čerkez: Mr. Božidar Kovačić and Mr. Goran Mikuličić Case No.: IT-95-14/2-A 17 December 2004 CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 A. THE ACCUSED..............................................................................................................................1 1. Dario Kordić ............................................................................................................................1 2. Mario Čerkez............................................................................................................................1 B. THE TRIAL JUDGEMENT ...............................................................................................................2 C. THE APPEALS ...............................................................................................................................2 II. THE LAW GOVERNING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS....................................................4 A. ERRORS OF LAW ...........................................................................................................................4 B. ERRORS OF FACT ..........................................................................................................................5 C. GENERAL PRINCIPLES...................................................................................................................6 III. APPLICABLE LAW...................................................................................................................8 A. PLANNING, INSTIGATING AND ORDERING PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 7(1) OF THE STATUTE.............8 B. THE RESPONSIBILITY UNDER ARTICLE 7(1) AND ARTICLE 7(3) OF THE STATUTE.........................9 C. WAR CRIMES UNDER ARTICLE 2 (GRAVE BREACHES) AND ARTICLE 3 (VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR) OF THE STATUTE .........................................................................10 1. Wilful killing (Article 2) and murder (Article 3)...................................................................10 2. Inhuman treatment .................................................................................................................11 3. Unlawful attack on civilians and civilian objects ..................................................................11 4. Elements of the crimes of unlawful attack against civilians and civilian objects under treaty law ...............................................................................................................................14 (a) Attack ..................................................................................................................................... 14 (b) Prohibited attacks................................................................................................................... 14 (c) Is a particular result of the attack required? ........................................................................... 17 (i) Preliminary considerations ................................................................................................. 17 (ii) State of customary international law during the Indictment period .................................. 17 (iii) Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 21 5. Unlawful confinement of civilians.........................................................................................21 6. Wanton destruction not justified by military necessity..........................................................23 7. Plunder of public or private property.....................................................................................24 8. Destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science.............26 D. ELEMENTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ...............................................................................29 1. The elements common to all crimes against humanity..........................................................29 (a) Requirement that the acts of the accused must take place in the context of a widespread or systematic attack..................................................................................................................... 29 (b) Requirement that the attack be directed against a civilian population................................... 29 (c) Is it a requirement that the acts of the accused and the attack itself must have been committed in pursuance to a pre-existing criminal policy or plan?........................................ 30 (d) Requirement that the accused has knowledge that his acts formed part of the broader criminal attack ........................................................................................................................ 30 2. The elements of persecutions as a crime against humanity ...................................................31 (a) Actus reus of persecutions...................................................................................................... 31 (i) Attacks on civilians and civilian objects: cities, towns, and villages ................................. 32 (ii) Wilful killing, murder, causing serious injury, and inhuman treatment............................ 32 (iii) Destruction and plunder/pillage of property..................................................................... 33 (b) Mens rea of persecutions ....................................................................................................... 33 3. Murder pursuant to Article 5(a) of the Statute.......................................................................34 4. Imprisonment pursuant to Article 5(e) of the Statute ............................................................34 5. Inhumane acts pursuant to Article 5(i) of the Statute ............................................................35 ii Case No.: IT-95-14/2-A 17 December 2004 IV. ALLEGED ERRORS RELATING TO DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW..............36 A. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND THE MATTERS AT ISSUE ON APPEAL ...............................36 1. Kordić’s First Ground of Appeal: Kordić was denied “equality of arms” and did not receive a fair trial...................................................................................................................36 2. Čerkez’s Third Ground of Appeal: Čerkez was denied a fair trial ........................................36 B. ALLEGED VAGUENESS OF THE INDICTMENT, INADEQUATE NOTICE OF THE CHARGES, AND THE PROSECUTION’S CASE AS A “MOVING TARGET” ..........................................................................37 1. Submissions of the parties......................................................................................................37 2. Discussion ..............................................................................................................................38 (a) Counts 1 and 2 as umbrella counts......................................................................................... 39 (b) The form of liability expressed in the Indictment.................................................................. 40 (c) Are material facts pleaded in the Indictment?........................................................................ 41 (d) Did the exclusion of the material fact cause prejudice?......................................................... 43 (e) Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 43 3. Is the Indictment vague in relation to forcible transfer/expulsion? .......................................43 (a) Was there lack of adequate notice of charges with respect to both Kordić and Čerkez?....... 43 (i) The findings of the Trial Chamber ..................................................................................... 44 (ii) Is the Indictment vague in relation to forcible transfer/expulsion as an underlying act of persecutions? ...................................................................................................................... 45 (iii) Is forcible transfer/expulsion a part of imprisonment/unlawful confinement? ................ 46 (iv) Is forcible transfer/expulsion a part of inhuman and/or cruel treatment of detainees?..... 47 (v) Has the vagueness of the Indictment been cured by the Pre-trial Brief or the opening statement?........................................................................................................................... 47 (b) Conclusion ............................................................................................................................