[1] See also Article 12(1) of the Statute and Rule 2(C) of the Rules. 

[2] Cf. Prosecutor v. Radovan Stanković, MICT-13-51, Decision on Stanković’s Appeal against Decision Denying Revocation of Referral and on the Prosecution’s Request for Extension of Time to Respond, 21 May 2014 (“Stanković Decision”), para. 9, and references contained therein.

[1] See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić, Case No. IT-09-92-AR73.5, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal against the 27 March 2015 Trial Chamber Decision on Modality for Prosecution Re-Opening, 22 May 2015, para. 6; Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-14-R75, Decision on Motion for Clarification, 20 June 2008, para. 14. See also Stanković Decision, para. 12; Phénéas Munyarugarama v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-09-AR14, Decision on Appeal against the Referral of Phénéas Mu[n]yarugarama’s Case to Rwanda and Prosecution Motion to Strike, 5 October 2012, para. 19. 

[1] The Appeals Chamber notes that the requirement that an applicant provide information as to the potential grounds for review in the context of a request for the assignment of counsel at the expense of the Mechanism necessarily involves revealing certain aspects of the applicant’s strategy in connection with the eventual request for review. 

[1] Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. MICT-12-25-R14.1, Decision on Jean Uwinkindi’s Motion for Translation of the Prosecution’s Response, 16 September 2015, p. 1.

[2] [Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. MICT-12-25-AR14.1,] Decision on Applications for Translations and Extensions of Time, 17 December 2015, p. 3.

[3] See Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-00-56-A, Decision on Bizimungu’s Motion for Extension of Time to File His Reply Brief, 8 March 2012, p. 2, referring to, inter alia, Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Motions for Extension of Time, 9 December 2004, p. 3.

[4] Cf. Justin Mugenzi and Prosper Mugiraneza v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-50-A, Decision on Prosper Mugiraneza’s Motion for Extension of Time to File His Appellant’s Brief, 26 January 2012, para. 10.

[5] Cf. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-00-56-A, Decision on Motions for Extension of Time for the Filing of Appeal Submissions, 11 July 2011, paras. 9, 15; Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-42-A, Decision on Motions for Extension of Time for the Filing of Appeal Submissions, 25 July 2011, para. 5.

[1] See Georges Anderson Nderubumwe Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-3-R, Decision on Georges A. N. Rutaganda’s Appeal against Decision on Request for Closed Session Testimony and Sealed Exhibits, 22 April 2009, para. 16. See also Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. MICT-13-33-R86.2, Second Decision on Motion for Access to Confidential Material from the Nshogoza Case, 9 November 2015, para. 5.

[2] [Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-16-R, Urgent Request for Orders Relating to Prosecution Witnesses, 21 December 2015 (public with public and confidential annexes) (“Motion”)], paras. 35-36.

[3] See Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Case No. IT-98-29/1-A, Decision on Radovan Karadžić’s Motion for Access to Confidential Material in the Dragomir Milošević Case, 19 May 2009, para. 11, referring to Prosecutor v. Enver Hadžihasanović et al., Case No. IT-01-47-AR73, Decision on Appeal from Refusal to Grant Access to Confidential Material in Another Case, 23 April 2002, p. 3.

[1] See Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-T, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Rule 65ter Witness List and for Disclosure of an Expert Witness Report Pursuant to Rule 94bis, 31 August 2010, para. 4; Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Leave to Amend Its Witness List to Add Witness KDZ597, 1 July 2010, para. 5; Prosecutor v. Momčilo Perišić, Case No. IT‑04-81-T, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion to Substitute Expert Witness, 30 October 2009 (“Perišić 30 October 2009 Decision”), para. 6; Prosecutor v. Vlastimir Đorđević, Case No. IT-05-87/1-T, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion to Add Milan Đaković to the Rule 65ter Witness List, 21 May 2009 (“Đorđević 21 May 2009 Decision”), para. 6; The Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-T, Decision on Prosecutor’s Motion for Leave to Vary the Witness List Pursuant to Rule 73bis(E), 21 May 2004, para. 13. See also The Prosecutor v. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al., Case No. ICTR-2000-56-T, Decision on Prosecution Motion to Vary Its List of Witnesses: Rule 73 bis (E) of the Rules, 11 February 2005, paras. 22, 23.

[2] See Augustin Ngirabatware v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-54-AR73(C), Decision on Ngirabatware’s Appeal of the Decision Reducing the Number of Defence Witnesses, 20 February 2012 (“Ngirabatware Appeal Decision”), para. 12; The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-AR73, Decision on Joseph Kanyabashi’s Appeal Against the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 21 March 2007 Concerning the Dismissal of Motions to Vary His Witness List, 21 August 2007 (“21 August 2007 Appeal Decision”), para. 10; Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-AR73.1, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Against Second Decision Precluding the Prosecution from Adding General Wesley Clark to Its 65ter Witness List, 20 April 2007 (“Milutinović et al. Appeal Decision”), paras. 9, 10.

[3] See The Prosecutor v. Augustin Ngirabatware, Case No. ICTR-99-54-T, Decision on Prosecution Motion for Leave to Vary Its Witness List, 28 January 2010, para. 50, referring to The Prosecutor v. Augustin Ndindiliyimana et al., Case No. ICTR-2000-56-T, Decision on Sagahutu’s Request to Vary His Witness List, 26 May 2008, paras. 5, 6.

[4] See, e.g., Perišić 30 October 2009 Decision, para. 6; Đorđević 21 May 2009 Decision, para. 5; Prosecutor v. Milan Lukić and Sredoje Lukić, Case No. IT-98-32/1-T, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion to Amend Prosecution’s Witness List (Dr. Fagel), 3 November 2008, p. 3.

[5] Haradinaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 39.

[6] Haradinaj et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 39.

[1] Bagosora and Nsengiyumva Appeal Judgement, para. 150; Ntagerura et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 23; Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 89.

[2] Cf. Uwinkindi Appeal Decision [Jean Uwinkindi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-75-AR72(C), Decision on Defence Appeal Against the Decision Denying Motion Alleging Defects in the Indictment, 16 November 2011], para. 36 (“When the Prosecution pleads a case of ‘instigation’, it must precisely describe the instigating acts and the instigated persons or groups of persons”), referring to Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 226. See also Ndindiliyimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 174.

[1] Cf. Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 284; Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995 (“Tadić Appeal Decision on Jurisdiction”), paras. 78, 140-141. The Appeals Chamber notes that this is similar to the Statute of the ICTY. See Article 5(h) of the Statute of the ICTY. On the contrary, the Appeals Chamber observes that the Rome Statute does not limit the jurisdiction of the ICC to an exhaustive list of discriminatory grounds on which persecution as a crime against humanity must be committed. Indeed, Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Statute contains an illustrative (open-ended) list of prohibited grounds for persecution as a crime against humanity, which reads as follows: “For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crimes against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: […] (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court”. The Appeals Chamber further notes that the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (“SCSL”), which was adopted after the Rome Statute, limits the jurisdiction of the SCSL over the crime of persecution as a crime against humanity to an exhaustive list of four discriminatory grounds, namely political, racial, ethnic, and religious grounds. See Article 2(h) of the Statute of the SCSL.

[2] Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 296. See also Tadić Appeal Decision on Jurisdiction, paras. 78, 140, 141. Cf. also Tadić Appeal Judgement, paras. 249, 251.

[3] Cf. Tadić Trial Judgement, para. 711 (“There are no definitive grounds in customary international law on which persecution must be based and a variety of different grounds have been listed in international instruments. The grounds in the Statute are based on the Nürnberg Charter which included race, religion and politics as the three grounds, as did Control Council Law No. 10, both of which were drafted to address the European situation. In contrast the Tokyo Charter excluded religion as a basis for persecution, given its inapplicability to the Pacific theatre of operation while, alternatively, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide contains the additional ground of ethnicity as do the 1991 and 1996 versions of the I.L.C. Draft Code, whereas the original 1954 Draft Code included culture as a basis for persecution. The possible discriminatory bases which the International Tribunal is empowered to consider are limited by the Statute to persecutions undertaken on the basis of race, religion and politics.”) (internal references omitted).

[4] Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 282.

[5] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 1155, p. 331 (“Vienna Convention”). See also Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 282, referring to International Court of Justice, Competence of the General Assembly for the admission of a State to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 4; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 98, referring to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention (“Ultimately, that question must be answered by an examination of the Tribunal’s Statute and Rules, and a construction of them which gives due weight to the principles of interpretation (good faith, textuality, contextuality, and teleology) set out in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”); Čelebići Appeal Judgement, para. 67 and references cited therein (reiterating that Article 31 of the Vienna Convention reflects customary international law); Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 35 (“Following the settled jurisprudence of the Tribunal, those words [(of Rules 98bis(B) of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence)] are to be ‘interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to [them] in their context and in the light of [their] object and purpose’, within the meaning of Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969.” (alteration in the original)).

[6] See supra, para. 2135.

[7] The Appeals Chamber recalls that “it is an elementary rule of interpretation that one should not construe a provision or a part of [it] as if it were superfluous and hence pointless: the presumption is warranted that law-makers enact or agree upon rules that are well thought out and meaningful in all their elements.” See Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 284. The Appeals Chamber further observes that the distinction between “race” and “ethnicity” is also clearly established in the definition of genocide given in Article 2 of the Statute (“Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group […].”).

[8] Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 985. See also, e.g., Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 320; Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 101; Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 131; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 185.

[9] Trial Judgement, para. 6097, referring to Bagosora et al. Trial Judgement, para. 2209, Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, paras. 986-988, 1002. The Appeals Chamber notes that paragraph 2209 of the Bagosora et al. Trial Judgement also refers to paragraphs 986 through 988, and 1002 of the Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement.

[10] See Trial Judgement, para. 6097.

[11] See Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 986. The Appeals Chamber further notes that, in the Nahimana et al. case, the convictions for persecution as a crime against humanity were based on the Trial Judgement’s finding that “the discriminatory intent of the Accused falls within the scope of crime against humanity of persecution on political grounds of an ethnic character”, noting that “RTLM, Kangura and CDR […] essentially merged political and ethnic identity, defining their political target on the basis of ethnicity and political positions relating to ethnicity.” See Nahimana et al. Trial Judgement, para. 1071. This finding was not challenged on appeal.

[12] Trial Judgement, para. 6097.

[1] Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir et al., Case No. IT‑04‑80-AR73.1, Decision on Radivoje Miletić’s Interlocutory Appeal Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Joinder of Accused, 27 January 2006 (“Miletić Appeal Decision on Joinder”), para. 7; Prosecutor v. Vinko Pandurević and Milorad Trbić, Case No. IT‑05‑86‑AR73.1, Decision on Vinko Pandurević’s Interlocutory Appeal against the Trial Chamber’s Decision on Joinder of Accused, 24 January 2006 (“Pandurević Appeal Decision on Joinder”), para. 7.

[2] Cf. Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina et al., Cases Nos. IT-01-45-AR73.1, IT‑03-73-AR73.1, IT-03-73-AR73.2, Decision on Interlocutory Appeals Against the Trial Chamber’s Decision to Amend the Indictment and for Joinder, 25 October 2006 (“Gotovina Appeal Decision on Joinder”), para. 16; Pandurević Appeal Decision on Joinder, para. 7. The Appeals Chamber considers that, although these decisions were taken in the context of joinder of cases where the Prosecution requested both joinder of the charges and consequently of the trials, this jurisprudence applies mutatis mutandis to cases, like the present case, where only joinder of trials was requested on the basis of several confirmed indictments.

[3] Gotovina Appeal Decision on Joinder, para. 16; Miletić Appeal Decision on Joinder, para. 7; Pandurević Appeal Decision on Joinder, para. 7.

[4] Miletić Appeal Decision on Joinder, para. 8; Pandurević Appeal Decision on Joinder, para. 8. See also Gotovina Appeal Decision on Joinder, para. 17.

[5] See Gotovina Appeal Decision on Joinder, para. 17; Miletić Appeal Decision on Joinder, para. 8; Pandurević Appeal Decision on Joinder, para. 8. Cf. also Ntabakuze Appeal Decision on Severance [Théoneste Bagosora et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Decision on Aloys Ntabakuze’s Motion for Severance, Retention of the Briefing Schedule and Judicial Bar to the Untimely Filing of the Prosecution’s Response Brief, 24 July 2009], para. 25.