Termination of proceedings
|Decision on Termination of Appellate Proceedings for Gvero - 07.03.2013||
POPOVIĆ et al.
5.[…] The Appeals Chamber further recalls that appellate proceedings before this Tribunal should be terminated following the death of the appellant for lack of jurisdiction. On the death of Gvero, the Appeals Chamber no longer has jurisdiction over his proceedings. The appellate proceedings in relation to Gvero must therefore be terminated, without prejudice to the appellate proceedings concerning the other appellants in the Popović et al. case.
 Delić Decision, [Prosecutor v. Rasim Delić, Case No. IT-04-83-A, Decision on the Outcome of the Proceedings, 29 June 2010] para. 8.
|Decision on Review - 17.12.2013||
Download full document
CONSIDERING further that Counsel have no standing in their own right in circumstances where the appellant has died and the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal have been terminated;
|Decision on the Outcome of Proceedings - 29.06.2010||
5. This is the first time in the history of both this Tribunal and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”) where an appellant has died before the rendering of the appeal judgement. The orders previously issued to terminate the proceedings following the death of an accused have so far only been rendered prior to the delivery of the trial judgement. That said, the Appeals Chamber notes that while neither the Statute nor the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”) explicitly provide for the course of action to be taken following the death of an appellant, a number of their provisions clearly exclude the possibility of the continuation of the appellate proceedings in such circumstances.
8. […] the Appeals Chamber finds that, as a matter of principle, the appellate proceedings before this Tribunal should be terminated following the death of the appellant for lack of jurisdiction. […]
For an overview of considerations raised in other international criminal jurisdictions where proceedings have been terminated following the death of an accused prior to the rendering of the trial judgement, see para. 7.
 E.g., Prosecutor v. Djordje Djukić, Case No. IT-96-20-A, Order Terminating the Appeal Proceedings, 29 May 1996 (in which the Appeals Chamber terminated all proceedings, given that at the time of death, it was seised of the Prosecution’s appeal against the Trial Chamber’s decision rejecting the parties’ requests to withdraw the Indictment on humanitarian grounds); Prosecutor v. Mile Mrkšić et al., Case No. IT-95-13a-T, Order Terminating Proceedings Against Slavko Dokmanović, 15 July 1998; Prosecutor v. Enver Hadžihasanović et al., Case No. IT-01-47-PT, Order Terminating Proceedings Against Mehmed Alagić, 21 March 2003; Prosecutor v. Momir Talić, Case No. IT-99-36/1-T, Order Terminating Proceedings Against Momir Talić, 12 June 2003; Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević, Case No. IT-02-54-T, Order Terminating the Proceedings, 14 March 2006; see also The Prosecutor v. Samuel Musabyimana, Case No. ICTR-2001-62-I, Order Terminating the Proceedings Against Samuel Musabyimana, 20 February 2003.
|Decision Dismissing a Request - 13.04.2018||
NOTING that Niyitegeka passed away on 28 March 2018, while serving his sentence in the Republic of Mali;
RECALLING that the Mechanism continues the personal jurisdiction of the ICTR as set out in Article 5 of the Statute of the ICTR ("ICTR Statute");
OBSERVING that Article 5 of the ICTR Statute stipulates that the ICTR "shall have jurisdiction over natural persons";
CONSIDERING that, when read in the context of the object and purpose of the ICTR Statute, "natural persons" is understood as limited to those who are alive;
RECALLING that appeal proceedings before the ICTY and trial proceedings before the ICTY and the ICTR have been terminated following the death of the appellant or the accused for lack of personal jurisdiction;
CONSIDERING that, to uphold principles of due process and fundamental fairness, the Mechanism's jurisdiction ratione personae, consistent with that of the ICTR and the ICTY, is limited to living persons;
FINDING that, in light of. Niyitegeka's death, the Appeals Chamber no longer has jurisdiction to consider the Request;
 See Registrar’s Submission Pursuant to Rule 31(B), 6 April 2018 (confidential), para. 2, Annex A. See also The Prosecutor v. Eliézer Niyitegeka, Case No. ICTR-96-14-T, Decision on the Enforcement of Sentence, 4 December 2008, p. 3. See also Request for Review, 27 June 2017 (confidential; French original filed on 7 June 2017), para. 1.
 Article 1 of the Statute of the Mechanism.
 See, mutatis mutandis, Prosecutor v. Rasim Delić, Case No. IT-04-83-A, Decision on the Outcome of the Proceedings, 29 June 2010 (“Delić Decision of 29 June 2010"), para. 6 (interpreting "natural persons" in Article 6 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ("ICTY")).
 See Delić Decision of 29 June 2010, paras. 5, 6, 8, 16, n. 16 and references cited therein. See also Prosecutor v. Goran Hadžić, Case No. IT-04-75-T, Order Terminating Proceedings, 22 July 2016, p. 1; The Prosecutor v. Édouard Karemera et al., Case No. ICTR-98-44-T, Decision Relating to Registrar’s Submission Notifying the Demise of Accused Joseph Nzirorera, 12 August 2010, para. 2. Cf. Édouard Karemera et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR‑98‑44‑AR91.3, Decision on Joseph Nzirorera’s Appeal of Decision Not to Investigate Witnesses GAP and BDW for False Testimony, 26 August 2010, p. 1 (dismissing Joseph Nzirorera’s pending interlocutory appeal after his death for lack of jurisdiction).
 See supra n. 8. See also Phénéas Munyarugarama v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-09-A.R14, Decision on Appeal Against the Referral of Phénéas Munyarugarama's Case to Rwanda and Prosecution Motion to Strike, 5 October 2012, paras. 5, 6.