533. The Appeals Chamber observes that the Trial Chamber recognised the territorial sovereignty of the FRY and the lack of a de jure border between Montenegro and Kosovo.[1] In reaching its conclusion that a de facto border existed between Montenegro and Kosovo, the Trial Chamber considered: (i) the degree of autonomy enjoyed by Kosovo; (ii) Montenegro’s status as a republic within the FRY; and (iii) the existence of “an armed conflict between forces of the FRY and Serbia on one hand and the KLA on the other”.[2] The Trial Chamber also considered that the displacement of Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo to Montenegro would have the same effect of “serious hardship” as the displacement across a state border, and that the displacement of Kosovo Albanians out of Kosovo would have made it easier for FRY and Serbian authorities to control Kosovo.[3]

534. However, in finding that a de facto border existed between Montenegro and Kosovo, the Trial Chamber failed to articulate the basis in customary international law upon which it found that a de facto border could be established in these circumstances.[4] The Appeals Chamber considers this to constitute an error of law. Consequently, the Appeals Chamber will assess whether, in light of customary international law, the circumstances of this case support the finding that a de facto border existed within the territory of the FRY, between Kosovo and Montenegro. 

535. The Appeals Chamber in Stakić previously undertook a survey of customary international law pertaining to the crime of deportation. The various sources considered in Stakić, however, do not provide any examples of an instance in which a displacement of persons from an autonomous region within a federal state to another republic within the same federal state constituted deportation.[5] Additional studies of customary international law regarding the crime of deportation were also undertaken in Judge Schomburg’s Partly Dissenting Opinion in the Naletilić and Martinović Appeal Judgement and Judge Shahabuddeen’s Partly Dissenting Opinion in the Stakić Appeal Judgement.[6] The authorities cited in these opinions, however, also do not address the issue of forcible displacement of individuals within the confines of a sovereign state by the government of that state but, instead, involve the presence of an occupying power or a contested border between two states.[7] The Appeals Chamber observes that the presence of an occupying power or of a contested border between states is not at issue in the present case.[8] The Appeals Chamber has found no support in customary international law for the proposition that a de facto border can be found within the confines of a sovereign state even where a certain degree of autonomy is exercised by portions of that state. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber’s finding that a de facto border existed based on the degree of autonomy enjoyed by Kosovo’s or Montenegro’s status as a republic within the state of the FRY finds no support in customary international law.[9]

536. In addition, the other factors considered by the Trial Chamber do not support a finding on the existence of a de facto border in customary international law. The Appeals Chamber does not intend to diminish the importance of the “serious hardship”[10] placed upon Kosovo Albanians forcibly displaced from Kosovo to Montenegro, as considered by the Trial Chamber, nor does it deny the presence of an armed conflict or the conclusion by the Trial Chamber that the displacement of Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo would have made it easier for FRY and Serbian authorities to control Kosovo.[11] However, the Appeals Chamber finds no basis in customary international law, including in any of the materials considered by the Stakić Appeal Judgement or in the Partly Dissenting Opinions of Judge Schomburg and Judge Shahabuddeen, to infer the presence of a de facto border in these circumstances.[12]

Paras 152-154: the Appeals Chamber found that there is no occasion in this case to define the elements of deportation as a crime against humanity under Article 5(d) of the Statute, because the Indictment included no charges under that Article. It also saw no need to consider the issue as a matter of general significance to the International Tribunal’s jurisprudence, as it had already been settled in the Stakić Appeal Judgement.[1]

Regarding deportation as a form of persecutions under Article 5(h) of the Statute, the Appeals Chamber referred to the Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 218: for the purposes of persecutions, it is irrelevant whether “deportation” encompasses a border element, because acts of “forcible displacement” are equally punishable as underlying acts of persecutions whether or not a border is crossed. “Forcible displacement” also sufficiently captures underlying acts of “deportation” and “forcible transfer” (para. 154):

[…] the question whether “deportation” encompasses a border element is irrelevant for the purposes of liability under Article 5(h) of the Statute, because acts of forcible displacement are equally punishable as underlying acts of persecutions whether or not a border is crossed. It is moreover not necessary, for the purposes of a persecutions conviction, to distinguish between the underlying acts of “deportation” and “forcible transfer”; the criminal responsibility of the accused is sufficiently captured by the general concept of forcible displacement.

388. Addressing the more specific issue of intra-Article 5 cumulative convictions, the Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement ruled that a correct application of the Čelebići test required “an examination, as a matter of law, of the elements of each offence in the Statute that pertain to that conduct for which the accused has been convicted.” Based on this reasoning, the Appeals Chamber admitted that convictions for the crimes against humanity of persecution on the one hand, and murder, other inhumane acts and imprisonment on the other hand, could be cumulated, since all of these offences contained “an element that requires proof of a fact not required by the other[s]”.[1]

389. In the instant case, Amicus Curiae alleges that the Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement is an incorrect application of the Čelebići test and should therefore not be used as a precedent. The Appeals Chamber cannot agree with this interpretation. While prior jurisprudence adopted another point of view,[2] in the Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement the Appeals Chamber clearly explained the reasons that warranted the departure from previous cases.[3] Subsequent appeal judgements in the Stakić, Naletilić and Martinović and Nahimana et al. cases confirmed the approach adopted in Kordić and Čerkez.[4] The Appeals Chamber therefore sees no cogent reason to depart from the current jurisprudence with respect to intra-Article 5 cumulative convictions.

390. In the Trial Judgement, the Trial Chamber determined that:

[p]ersecution as a crime against humanity has a materially distinct element from murder as a crime against humanity in that persecution requires proof that an act or omission discriminates in fact, and proof that the act or omission was committed with specific intent to discriminate. Conversely, murder as a crime against humanity requires proof that the accused caused the victim’s death, which is not an element required for proof of persecution. As a result, a cumulative conviction for persecution and murder under Article 5 of the Statute is permissible. The same reasoning applies to extermination, deportation, and forced transfer as an inhumane act.[5]

391. The Appeals Chamber, by majority, Judge Güney dissenting,[6] considers that this is a correct application of the law on cumulative convictions. Therefore, the Trial Chamber did not err in cumulating the conviction for persecution as a crime against humanity with the convictions for the crimes against humanity of murder, extermination, deportation and inhumane acts (forcible transfer). This ground of appeal is dismissed.

684. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber recalls that it is not required that members of a joint criminal enterprise agree upon a particular form through which the forcible displacement is to be effectuated or that its members intend specific acts of coercion causing such displacement, so long as it is established that they intended to forcibly displace the victims.[1]