17. An alibi does not constitute a defence in its proper sense.[1] By raising an alibi, an accused is simply denying that he was in a position to commit the crime with which he was charged.[2] An accused does not bear the burden of proving his alibi beyond reasonable doubt.[3] Rather, “[h]e must simply produce the evidence tending to show that he was not present at the time of the alleged crime”[4] or, otherwise stated, present evidence “likely to raise a reasonable doubt in the Prosecution case.”[5] If the alibi is reasonably possibly true, it must be accepted.[6]

18. Where an alibi is properly raised, the Prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that, despite the alibi, the facts alleged are nevertheless true.[7] The Prosecution may do so, for instance, by demonstrating that the alibi does not in fact reasonably account for the period when the accused is alleged to have committed the crime. Where the alibi evidence does prima facie account for the accused’s activities at the relevant time of the commission of the crime, the Prosecution must “eliminate the reasonable possibility that the alibi is true,”[8] for example, by demonstrating that the alibi evidence is not credible.

19. The Appeals Chamber has considered on several occasions whether Trial Chambers have erroneously shifted the burden of proof to the accused with respect to their alibis. Appellants have frequently pointed to language in the assessment of alibi evidence intimating that they were required to disprove the Prosecution’s evidence through their alibis. The Appeals Chamber has recognized that language which suggests, inter alia, that an accused must “negate” the Prosecution’s evidence,[9] “exonerate” himself,[10] or “refute the possibility” that he participated in a crime[11] indicates that the Trial Chamber misapplied the burden of proof. Indeed, as stated in the Musema Appeal Judgement, “[i]n considering the manner in which the Trial Chamber applied the burden and standard of proof, the Appeals Chamber must start off by assuming that the words used in the Trial Judgement accurately describe the approach adopted by the Trial Chamber.”[12]

20. In assessing whether a Trial Chamber, when using this type of language, has in fact shifted the burden of proof, the Appeals Chamber carries out an in-depth analysis of the specific findings related to a given incident.[13] The Appeals Chamber has generally found that such language, while inappropriate, is not fatal when viewed in the broader context of a Trial Chamber’s findings. This is especially the case where the Trial Chamber accurately refers elsewhere in the judgement to the appropriate burden of proof for the evaluation of alibi evidence, its overall approach evinces a careful assessment of the alibi evidence, and its conclusion that the alibi evidence is ultimately not credible is reasonable when weighed against the evidence of participation in a crime.[14]

38. The Appeals Chamber observes that the Trial Chamber correctly stated that the Prosecution bears the burden of establishing the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt[15] and that it would consider each piece of evidence in light of the totality of the evidence admitted at trial.[16] […]

39. Nonetheless, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber’s assessment of Zigiranyirazo’s alibi involves three serious errors that, taken together, invalidate his convictions based on the events at Kesho Hill. Specifically, the Trial Chamber erred by misapprehending the burden of proof in the context of alibi, failing to consider or provide a reasoned opinion with respect to relevant circumstantial evidence, and misconstruing key evidence which, properly considered, bolstered Zigiranyirazo’s alibi.

42. The Appeals Chamber emphasizes that a successful alibi does not require conclusive proof of an accused’s whereabouts.[17] Indeed, there is no requirement that an alibi “exclude the possibility” that the accused committed a crime.[18] The alibi need only raise reasonable doubt that the accused was in a position to commit the crime.[19]

36. As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Chamber has previously stated that a detailed record of a Trial Chamber’s site visit should normally be maintained.[1] The Appeals Chamber observes, however, that Zigiranyirazo did not object at trial to the lack of record. In addition, there appears to be no dispute with respect to the itinerary and travel times taken by the Trial Chamber during its site visit. The absence of a record also did not prevent Zigiranyirazo from fully addressing issues arising from the site visit in his Defence Closing Brief. Consequently, the Appeals Chamber does not consider that the lack of a record of the site visit invalidated the verdict.

32. The Appeals Chamber recalls that when noting Article 49 (1) of Additional Protocol I, the Galić Appeals Chamber held that the crime of terror can comprise attacks or threats of attacks against the civilian population.[1] It did not limit the possible consequences of such attacks to death or serious injuries among the victims.[2] Rather, it concentrated on the assessment of whether the allegations before it would qualify for the crime of terror under international customary law.

33. The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber misinterpreted the Galić jurisprudence by stating that “actual infliction of death or serious harm to body or health is a required element of the crime of terror”, and thus committed an error of law.Causing death or serious injury to body or health represents only one of the possible modes of commission of the crime of terror, and thus is not an element of the offence per se. What is required, however, in order for the offence to fall under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, is that the victims suffered grave consequences resulting from the acts or threats of violence;[4] such grave consequences include, but are not limited to death or serious injury to body or health. Accordingly, because the Trial Chamber established in the present case that all the incidents imputed to the SRK constituted unlawful attacks against civilians, and thus caused death or serious injury to body or health of civilians,[5] the threshold of gravity required for the crime of terror based on those incidents has been met. Whereas the nature of the acts of violence or threats thereof constitutive of the crime of terror can vary,[6] the Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the actus reus of the crime of terror has been established in this case and does not find it necessary to explore the matter any further.

34. As for the Prosecution’s submission that the crime of terror has no result requirement provided that the underlying acts or threats of violence are “capable of spreading terror”,[7] the Appeals Chamber notes that the travaux préparatoires to Additional Protocol I show that there had been attempts among the delegations to introduce “acts capable of spreading terror” into the language of the prohibition enshrined under Article 51(2) thereof.[8] However, these proposals were not reflected in the final text of the provision.[9] In addition, the Appeals Chamber considers that the definition of the actus reus of the crime of terror suggested by the Prosecution, notably “acts capable of spreading terror”, does not necessarily imply grave consequences for the civilian population and thus does not per se render the violation of the said prohibition serious enough for it to become a war crime within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

35. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that the Galić Appeal Judgement clarifies that while “extensive trauma and psychological damage form part of the acts or threats of violence”, the “actual terrorisation of the civilian population is not an element of the crime”.[10] It should be noted, however, that evidence of actual terrorisation may contribute to establishing other elements of the crime of terror.[11] The Trial Chamber in the instant case established that the incidents had had a psychological impact on the population of Sarajevo.[12] In the circumstances of the case, such psychological impact also satisfies the required gravity threshold.[13]

39. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber recalls the two-pronged test articulated in the Čelebići Appeal Judgement[1] and emphasizes that the focus of the analysis is to be placed on the legal elements of each crime, rather than on the underlying conduct of the accused.[2] With respect to the offence of unlawful attacks against civilians, the Appeals Chamber recalls that it requires proof of death or serious injury to body or health, which, as explained in paragraph 33 above, is not per se an element of the crime of terror. Conversely, the offence of terror requires proof of an intent to spread terror among the civilian population which is not an element of the crime of unlawful attacks against civilians. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber finds that each offence has an element requiring proof of a fact not required by the other, thus allowing cumulative convictions. The Trial Chamber’s conclusion to the contrary was, accordingly, erroneous.

58. Concerning the status of victims of crimes under Article 5 of the Statute, the Appeals Chamber recalls that “there is nothing in the text of Article 5 of the Statute, or previous authorities of the Appeals Chamber, that requires that individual victims of crimes against humanity be civilians”.[1] Nonetheless, it notes that the civilian status of the victims remains relevant for the purpose of the chapeau requirement of Article 5 of the Statute as one of the factors to be assessed in determining whether the civilian population was the primary target of an attack.[2] Furthermore, “the fact that a population, under the chapeau of Article 5 of the Statute, must be 'civilian' does not imply that such population shall only be comprised of civilians.”[3] Accordingly, the civilian status of the victims and the proportion of civilians within a population are factors relevant to satisfy the chapeau requirement that an attack was directed against a “civilian population”, yet it is not an element of the crimes against humanity that individual victims of the underlying crimes be “civilians”.[4]

302. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber recalls that it is settled jurisprudence of this Tribunal that while a position of authority, even at a high level, does not automatically warrant a harsher sentence, the abuse of such may indeed constitute an aggravating factor.[1] The Appeals Chamber further reiterates, Judge Liu dissenting, that this holds true in the context of a conviction under Article 7(1) of the Statute, including the mode of responsibility for planning and ordering crimes.[2] Before arriving at its conclusion, the Trial Chamber in the instant case specifically took into account Milošević’s high rank within the VRS, the ensuing special responsibility to uphold the standards of international humanitarian law, and the fact that he was highly respected by the SRK staff.[3] In this regard, the Appeals Chamber recalls that whereas the mode of liability of ordering requires that the person giving the order has a position of authority, the abuse of such authority may still be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing.[4] The Trial Chamber was mindful of the fact that the superior position per se does not constitute an aggravating factor and did not consider Milošević’s authority to give orders to that effect.[5] Rather, it took into account the particularly high level of Milošević’s authority and the high esteem of his soldiers in assessing whether his conduct amounted to an abuse of his superior position. Milošević has failed to demonstrate any error in this regard.

303. […] In addition, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the superior’s abuse of his position of a high level of authority may also be taken into consideration for a conviction under Article 7(3) of the Statute.[6]

306. […] [T]he Appeals Chamber observes that the language of the Trial Judgement may be read to conclude that certain factors were taken into account twice by the Trial Chamber in its assessment of the gravity of the crimes and the aggravating circumstances.[1] Where established, such double-counting amounts to a legal error since “factors taken into consideration as aspects of the gravity of a crime cannot additionally be taken into account as separate aggravating circumstances, and vice versa.”[2] […]

309. The Appeals Chamber is not convinced by the Prosecution’s argument that relying on different aspects of the same fact is permissible. In weighing a fact, either as an aspect of the gravity of the crime or as an aggravating circumstance, the Trial Chamber is required to consider and account all of its aspects and implications on the sentence in order to ensure that no double-counting occurs. The Appeals Chamber thus finds that the said facts could only be taken into consideration once – either as factors relevant to the gravity of the crimes or as aggravating circumstances.

265. The Trial Chamber has adopted a very general approach in that it did not analyse whether Milošević ordered every sniping or shelling incident, but rather concluded that those incidents could only take place if ordered by him in the framework of the campaign directed against the civilian population of Sarajevo. In principle, this approach is not erroneous as such, given that both the actus reus and the mens rea of ordering can be established through inferences from circumstantial evidence, provided that those inferences are the only reasonable ones. The Appeals Chamber underlines, however, that when applying such an approach to the facts of the case, great caution is required.

266. First, the Appeals Chamber emphasizes that, as the Trial Chamber correctly held in its discussion of the widespread or systematic attack, “[a] campaign is a military strategy; it is not an ingredient of any of the charges in the Indictment, be that terror, murder or inhumane acts”.[1] The Appeals Chamber notes, however, that in other parts of the Trial Judgement, the Trial Chamber appears to hold Milošević responsible for planning and ordering a campaign of crimes.[2] The Appeals Chamber understands these references as illustrating that the crimes at stake formed a pattern comprised by the SRK military campaign in Sarajevo. Therefore, the “campaign” in the present Appeal Judgement shall be understood as a descriptive term illustrating that the attacks against the civilian population in Sarajevo, in the form of sniping and shelling, were carried out as a pattern forming part of the military strategy in place.

Having clarified that Milošević could not be held criminally responsible for planning or ordering a military campaign (but rather for the crimes resulting therefrom), the Appeals Chamber further concluded that there was no evidence of him planning or ordering the campaign as such. Therefore, there was no basis for a conclusion that he planned and ordered the crimes on the ground that they resulted from a military campaign. Consequently, the Appeals Chamber proceeded to analyse whether there was evidence supporting the Trial Chamber’s conclusions that Milošević planned and ordered the crimes resulting from the specific shelling and sniping incidents. The Appeals Chamber further underlined:

271. The Appeals Chamber emphasizes that its findings above pertain strictly to Milošević’s individual criminal responsibility for ordering and planning the campaign of shelling and sniping of civilians in Sarajevo as such, given that not all the legal requirements necessary for these modes of liability have been established at trial. These findings do not affect the conclusions of the Trial Chamber or those of the Galić Trial and Appeal Chambers that such a campaign took place in Sarajevo during the relevant period.

The Trial Chamber sentenced Milošević to 33 years of imprisonment.

333. The Appeals Chamber recalls that it overturned Milošević’s convictions for planning the crimes of terror, murder and inhumane acts on the basis that his responsibility for ordering the relevant crimes pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute fully encompasses his criminal conduct and does not warrant a separate conviction for planning the same crimes.[1] In this context, where the findings with respect to Milošević’s criminal conduct and the seriousness of the crimes remain undisturbed, the Appeals Chamber finds that no reduction of sentence is warranted.

334. In addition, the Appeals Chamber has vacated Milošević’s convictions under Article 7(1) with respect to crimes committed through sniping incidents and replaced them with convictions pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute.[2] The Appeals Chamber acknowledges that in appropriate cases, a conviction under Article 7(3) of the Statute may result in a lesser sentence as compared to that imposed in the context of an Article 7(1) conviction.[3] However, in this particular case, the Appeal Chamber finds that its conclusions with respect to the form of Milošević’s responsibility for the crimes at stake do not in any way diminish his active and central role in the commission of the crimes.[4] Indeed, Milošević did more than merely tolerate the crimes as a commander; in maintaining and intensifying the campaign of shelling and sniping the civilian population in Sarajevo throughout the Indictment period, he provided additional encouragement to his subordinates to commit the crimes against civilians. Therefore, no reduction of sentence is warranted on this basis either.

335. [The Appeals Chamber reversed Milošević’s convictions for three shelling incidents] […] Although these findings do not change the fact that the entire population of Sarajevo was the victim of the crime of terror committed under Milošević’s command, they do involve fewer victims of the crimes of murder and other inhumane acts imputable to Milošević under counts 5 and 6 of the Indictment. The Appeals Chamber thus finds that these reversals have an impact, although limited, on Milošević’s overall culpability.

337. Taking into account the particular circumstances of this case, the gravity of the crimes for which Milošević’s convictions have been upheld, and the quashing of the convictions outlined above, the Appeals Chamber concludes that Milošević’s sentence should be reduced to a term of imprisonment of 29 years.

297. Due to their obligation to individualise the penalties to fit the circumstance of an accused and the gravity of the crime, Trial Chambers are vested with broad discretion in determining the appropriate sentence, including the determination of the weight given to mitigating or aggravating circumstances.[1] As a general rule, the Appeals Chamber will not revise a sentence unless the Trial Chamber has committed a discernible error in exercising its discretion or has failed to follow the applicable law. It is for the appellant to demonstrate that the Trial Chamber gave weight to extraneous or irrelevant considerations, failed to give weight or sufficient weight to relevant considerations, made a clear error as to the facts upon which it exercised its discretion, or that the Trial Chamber’s decision was so unreasonable or plainly unjust that the Appeals Chamber is able to infer that the Trial Chamber must have failed to exercise its discretion properly.[2]