22. […] While confirming the principle that to avoid prejudice to an accused in the preparation of the defence case the Prosecution must plead the material facts in the indictment, it does not follow that a Trial Chamber must allow a Prosecution application to amend an indictment to expand the material facts alleged pre-trial if in all the circumstances prejudice would accrue to the accused by those amendments.  The fact that the expansion of counts charged may be derived from material already disclosed to the Accused also does not automatically nullify prejudice to the Accused.  It is to be assumed that an Accused will prepare his defence on the basis of material facts contained in the indictment, not on the basis of all the material disclosed to him that may support any number of additional charges, or expand the scope of existing charges.  In either circumstance, when a complaint is made on appeal about a failure to plead material facts, or objection is made to a Prosecution application to amend to add material facts or new charges, the issue is whether the accused has been or will be prejudiced.

38. While the Appeals Chamber has determined that the Trial Chamber erred in classifying some of the proposed amendments as new charges, this does not necessarily mean that the Trial Chamber erred in the decision that it reached to reject the proposed amendments.  As the Trial Chamber acknowledged in its decision, new charges do not prohibit a Chamber from granting the Prosecution leave to amend an indictment.  Conversely, the fact that an amendment to an indictment does not amount to a new charge does not automatically obligate the Trial Chamber to permit it.  Rule 50 (A), which governs the permissibility of amendments to indictments, does not distinguish between amendments that add new charges and those that merely add or clarify material facts.  Rather, whether to permit either kind of indictment is a multi-factor discretionary decision for the Trial Chamber.  In this case, the Trial Chamber’s decision did not turn principally on the fact that new charges were involved, but rather on the prejudice to the Accused that would result from permitting the amendments and on the Prosecution’s failure to request the amendments at a date consistent with due diligence.  Thus, the Appeals Chamber’s conclusion that the Trial Chamber incorrectly categorised some of the amendments as new charges does not require setting aside the Trial Chamber’s decision; instead, the Appeals Chamber must assess the issues of prejudice and prosecutorial diligence.

51. […] As the Appeals Chamber held in the Karemera case, “although Rule 50 does not require the Prosecution to amend the indictment as soon as it discovers evidence supporting the amendment, neither may it delay giving notice of the changes to the Defence without any reason”.[1]  Under some circumstances, the Prosecution might justifiably wait to file an amendment while it continues its investigation so as to determine whether further evidence either strengthens its case or weakens it.  […] Where the Prosecution has delayed unnecessarily in bringing particular allegations, and this delay has caused prejudice to the defendant, it is within the Trial Chamber’s discretion to find that this delay constitutes sufficient ground to refuse an amendment to an indictment.[2]

CONSIDERING that although the principal mandate of the Appeals Chamber is to consider legal errors invalidating the Trial Chamber’s Judgement or factual errors occasioning a miscarriage of justice,[1] it has repeatedly held that it may also consider legal issues that are “of general significance to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence,”[2] even if they do not affect the verdict, so long as they have a “nexus with the case at hand,”[3] and that such determinations do not constitute impermissible “advisory opinions,”[4] but are instead necessary means of moving forward this ad hoc International Tribunal’s jurisprudence within the limited time in which it operates and contributing meaningfully to the overall development of international criminal law;[5]

17. The Appeals Chamber emphasizes that Rule 94 of the Rules is not a mechanism that may be employed to circumvent the general Rules governing the admissibility of evidence and litter the record with matters which would not be admitted otherwise. Accordingly, on appeal, a fact qualifying for judicial notice under Rule 94 of the Rules is not automatically admitted.  For a fact capable of judicial notice to be admitted on appeal, the requirements provided for by Rule 115 of the Rules need to be satisfied.

18. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber finds that a motion filed solely under Rule 94 of the Rules, without addressing the requirements of Rule 115 of the Rules, is an incorrect way to seek to have facts or documentary evidence admitted on appeal. Contrary to the argument of the Appellant, the Appeals Chamber finds that this will not “eviscerate” Rule 94 of the Rules in relation to all appellate proceedings, since the legal consequences attached to the taking of judicial notice remain the same. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the taking of judicial notice under Rule 94(A) or 94(B) of the Rules entails specific consequences for the moving party.

A. Pleading Practices of the Prosecution

9. The interlocutory appeal of the Appellants does relate to issues that should have been raised in a preliminary motion filed pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules. The first complaint is directed to the pleading practices of the Prosecution. In relation to each of the Counts challenged on this Appeal, the Appellants argue that the Prosecution failed to satisfy the first requirement of the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision by not identifying the rule of international humanitarian law alleged to have been breached, or indicating whether the legal basis for that count was the laws of war (conventional) or customary international law (customs of war).[1]

10. While the Appeals Chamber agrees that an accused is entitled to know the jurisdictional basis for the charge against him, the Appellants in this case did not complain of the Prosecution’s pleading prior to the commencement of this trial pursuant to Rule  72 of the Rules.[2] Given that it was clear at that time that the Prosecution was not expressly pleading the nature of the armed conflict, and that the Prosecution was proceeding on the basis that Article 3 applied to both international and non-international conflicts, it might be inferred that the Appellants saw a tactical advantage in waiting until this time. While the Appellants say that, during the pre-trial stage, they made no challenge to the pleading because of the holding of the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision regarding the application of Article 3 offences to both types of conflict, they also say that the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision did not establish the applicability of all Article 3 offences to non-international armed conflicts, because Tadić was not charged with any property offences under Article 3.[3] Hence, the Appellants’ reliance on the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision as a reason for not bringing a pre-trial motion challenging the Prosecution’s pleading is not persuasive. The Appellants knew at the time of the issuing of the Indictment that their argument would be that the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision did not establish the application of the Article 3 offences subject of Counts 5, 6 and 7 to non-international armed conflicts, and that complaint should have been made pre-trial.

11. The Appellants further complain that the Prosecution did not identify the legal basis for the Counts charged because it did not want to commit itself to proving that the armed conflict was either international or non-international.[4] This is also a complaint about the pleading practice of the Prosecution that should have been brought by the Appellants during the pre-trial stage. By not pleading the nature of the armed conflict in the Indictment, the Prosecution left the issue to the Trial Chamber to determine. The Prosecution also made it clear to the Appellants that it did not consider the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over Counts 5, 6, and 7 to be dependent on a finding that an international armed conflict occurred. If the Appellants required greater clarification than this, they should have filed a pre -trial motion pursuant to Rule 72.

1. Scope of Article 3

13. The Appellants’ challenge to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over Counts 5, 6 and 7 of the Indictment stems from the Appellants’ interpretation of the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision regarding the scope of jurisdiction under Article 3 of the Statute. In the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision, the Appeals Chamber held that Article 3 confers jurisdiction over any serious offence against international humanitarian law committed in non-international or international armed conflict not covered by Articles 2, 4, or 5.[1] The Appeals Chamber prescribed a four-prong test to ensure that offences charged under Article 3 lie within the International Tribunal’s jurisdiction.[2] On appeal the Appellants argue that the jurisdictional grant embodied in the enumerated provisions of Article 3 only refers to the conventional law from which that text is derived. The Appellants claim that as that conventional law underpinning Articles 3(b), (d) and (e), charged in Counts 5, 6 and 7 of the Indictment respectively, relates to international armed conflicts and situations in occupied territory, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over these offences in non-international armed conflicts.[3]

14. The Appellants’ position is an unnecessarily narrow reading of the Appeals Chamber’s jurisprudence with respect to the scope of the enumerated provisions in Article 3. In the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision, the Appeals Chamber stated, with respect to the list of enumerated violations, that “this list may be construed to include other infringements of international humanitarian law”,[4] demonstrating that the enumerated crimes of the list itself should be considered to encompass rules in addition to the conventional law from which their text originates.[5] Accordingly, properly understood, Article 3 confers jurisdiction over violations of rules that are expressed by the provisions of the Article, but which are not limited to the conditions of the rule’s origin in conventional instruments applicable to international armed conflicts only.[6]

See also para. 45.

37. […] The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that the customary international law rule embodied in Article 3(e) is applicable in all situations of armed conflict [international and non-international], and is not limited to occupied territory.[1]

38. The Appeals Chamber is satisfied that violations of the prohibition against “plunder of public or private property” under Rule 3(e) entail, under customary law, the individual criminal responsibility of the person breaching the rule. […]

See also the omitted portions of paras 37-38 where the Appeals Chamber discusses legal sources.

47. The Appeals Chamber in the Tadić Jurisdiction Appeal found that the Article 3(d) prohibition against destruction or wilful damage to institutions dedicated to religion applied to both non-international and international armed conflict.[1] This Appeals Chamber affirms that conclusion.

48. The Appeals Chamber is satisfied that violations of the prohibition against “destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion” under Rule 3(d) entails, under customary law, the individual criminal responsibility of the person breaching the rule. […]

See also the omitted portions of para. 48 where the Appeals Chamber discusses legal sources.

The Appeals Chamber affirmed that “an accused may be responsible for crimes committed beyond the common purpose of the systemic joint criminal enterprise, if they were a natural and foreseeable consequence thereof.” (para. 86). It then clarified the requirement that the crime be a natural and foreseeable consequence of the joint criminal enterprise: 

86. […] [I]t is to be emphasized that this question must be assessed in relation to the knowledge of a particular accused.  This is particularly important in relation to the systemic form of joint criminal enterprise, which may involve a large number of participants performing distant and distinct roles. What is natural and foreseeable to one person participating in a systemic joint criminal enterprise, might not be natural and foreseeable to another, depending on the information available to them. Thus, participation in a systemic joint criminal enterprise does not necessarily entail criminal responsibility for all crimes which, though not within the common purpose of the enterprise, were a natural or foreseeable consequence of the enterprise. A participant may be responsible for such crimes only if the Prosecution proves that the accused had sufficient knowledge such that the additional crimes were a natural and foreseeable consequence to him.     

96. The Appeals Chamber has explained the actus reus of the participant in a joint criminal enterprise as follows:

First, a plurality of persons is required. They need not be organised in a military, political or administrative structure. Second, the existence of a common purpose which amounts to or involves the commission of a crime provided for in the Statute is required. There is no necessity for this purpose to have been previously arranged or formulated. It may materialise extemporaneously and be inferred from the facts. Third, the participation of the accused in the common purpose is required, which involves the perpetration of one of the crimes provided for in the Statute. This participation need not involve commission of a specific crime under one of the provisions (for example murder, extermination, torture or rape), but may take the form of assistance in, or contribution to, the execution of the common purpose.[1]

97. The Appeals Chamber notes that, in general, there is no specific legal requirement that the accused make a substantial contribution to the joint criminal enterprise. However, there may be specific cases which require, as an exception to the general rule, a substantial contribution of the accused to determine whether he participated in the joint criminal enterprise.[2] In practice, the significance of the accused’s contribution will be relevant to demonstrating that the accused shared the intent to pursue the common purpose..

See also paras 188 and 599:

188. The Appeals Chamber recalls however that the significance and scope of the material participation of an individual in a joint criminal enterprise may be relevant in determining whether that individual had the requisite mens rea.[3] The extent of the material participation is also a decisive factor when assessing the responsibility of an individual for aiding and abetting the crimes committed by the plurality of persons involved in the joint criminal enterprise. As stated in the Tribunal’s case-law, the aider and abettor must make a substantial contribution to the crime in order to be held responsible.[4]

599. […] The Appeals Chamber maintains the general rule that a substantial contribution to the joint criminal enterprise is not required,[5] but finds that, in the present case of “opportunistic visitors”, a substantial contribution to the overall effect of the camp is necessary to establish responsibility under the joint criminal enterprise doctrine.

101. The Appeals Chamber affirms that the de facto or de jure position of employment within the camp is only one of the contextual factors to be considered by the Trial Chamber in determining whether an accused participated in the common purpose. A position of authority, however, may be relevant evidence for establishing the accused’s awareness of the system, his participation in enforcing or perpetuating the common criminal purpose of the system, and, eventually, for evaluating his level of participation for sentencing purposes.[1]

103. The Appeals Chamber notes that in assessing the level of contribution to a joint criminal enterprise which can be inferred from positions held in a camp, the Trial Chamber reviewed some of the post-World War II jurisprudence. Upon review, the Trial Chamber held that:

The concentration camp cases seemingly establish a rebuttable presumption that holding an executive, administrative, or protective role in a camp constitutes general participation in the crimes committed therein. An intent to further the efforts of the joint criminal enterprise so as to rise to the level of co-perpetration may also be inferred from knowledge of the crimes being perpetrated in the camp and continued participation which enables the camp’s functioning.[2]

The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber did not err in its discussion of these early cases. As it is clear that there is no requirement of “membership” in a group, beyond playing a role in a camp, in order to incur joint criminal enterprise responsibility, Appellant Prcać’s submission is rejected.

104. In another related argument, Appellant Radić submits that he should not be found guilty as a co-perpetrator since the Trial Chamber acquitted him of all charges based on superior responsibility.[3] The suggestion implicit in this argument is that a person lacking sufficient authority to be considered a superior would necessarily also lack sufficient authority to make a “significant contribution” to a systemic joint criminal enterprise. The Appeals Chamber notes that participation in a joint criminal enterprise pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute and superior responsibility pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute are distinct categories of individual criminal responsibility, each with specific legal requirements.[4] Joint criminal enterprise responsibility does not require any showing of superior responsibility, nor the proof of a substantial or significant contribution.[5] Moreover, it is not appropriate to convict under both Article 7(1) and Article 7(3) of the Statute for the same crime. Where the legal requirements of both forms of responsibility are met, a conviction should be entered on the basis of Article 7(1) only, and the superior position should be taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing.[6] Thus, Appellant Radić’s argument is dismissed.