Sentencing errors and validity of conviction
|Contempt Appeal Judgement - 19.05.2010||
Šešelj contended that his sentence was disproportionate in comparison to previous sentences imposed in other contempt cases. He further submitted that the Trial Chamber erred in ordering him to withdraw from the web-site his book in which he disclosed confidential information before the Appeals Chamber delivered its judgement on his appeal. He asserted that both alleged errors individually justified setting the Trial Judgement aside.
35. The Appeals Chamber notes that while the imposition of a sentence is necessarily dependent on a finding of guilt, the conviction itself stands entirely unaffected by the sentence eventually imposed. It finds no basis or precedent in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal for setting aside a conviction on the basis of sentence, or on the basis of an order accompanying a sentence. Šešelj provides no reasoned explanation for why it should do so. Accordingly, these two grounds of appeal against conviction are summarily dismissed.
 Šešelj Appeal Judgement, para. 33, referring to Notice of Appeal and Appellant’s Brief Against the Judgment [sic] on Allegations of Contempt Pursuant to the Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion for Order Striking Appellant’s Notice of Appeal and Appeal Brief and Closing the Case Issued by the Appeals Chamber on 16 December 2009, filed in B/C/S on 12 January 2010 (confidential), paras 16, 17.
 The Appeals Chamber notes that it has already upheld the Trial Chamber’s order to remove the Book from the website, and dismissed Šešelj’s contention that the non-custodial order should be set aside. See Decision on Urgent Motions to Remove or Redact Documents Pertaining to Protected Witnesses, 16 December 2009 (confidential) […], pp. 3-5.