186. It is, therefore, evident, both from the text of Article 4(2)[1] and the accompanying Commentary, that for Article 4(2) to be relevant, it must be demonstrated, first, that the States were allies, and second, that they enjoyed effective and satisfactory diplomatic representation with each other. In contrast, the Appellant submits that the Trial Chamber should have ignored the fact that “HVO and ABiH forces, at times, fought each other” and looked simply at the “formal diplomatic relations” between the two States.[2] Such an approach is not only inconsistent with the object and purpose of Article 4 of Geneva Convention IV, that is, “the protection of civilians to the maximum extent possible”,[3] but also conflates the distinction between co-belligerence and diplomatic representations.

187.    The Appellant makes no attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the status of belligerent and that of co-belligerent, but instead refers the Appeals Chamber to allegedly “uncontroverted evidence establishing co-belligerence and diplomatic relations” between the two States.[4] The language of Article 4 of Geneva Convention IV is not so elastic as to allow the conclusion that two States could simultaneously be allies and belligerents with each other. In this case, the States of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina were engaged in a conflict against each other. This, in itself, establishes that they were not co-belligerents within the meaning Article 4(2) for the purpose of crimes arising out of that conflict.

30. Pursuant to Rule 66(A)(ii) of the Rules, the Prosecutor has a duty, inter alia, to make available to the Defence copies of the statements of all witnesses whom the Prosecutor intends to call to testify at trial. The Appeals Chamber notes that neither the ICTR nor ICTY has provided a clear definition of the term “statement.” In particular, the jurisprudence has not made a clear distinction between “statements” and “internal documents prepared by a party [which] are not subject to disclosure or notification”[1] under Rules 66 and 67 of the Rules.[2]

31. A record of a witness interview, ideally, is composed of all the questions that were put to a witness and of all the answers given by the witness. The time of the beginning and the end of an interview, specific events such as requests for breaks, offering and accepting of cigarettes, coffee and other events that could have an impact on the statement or its assessment should be recorded as well.

32. Such an interview must be recorded in a language the witness understands. As soon as possible after the interview has been given, the witness must have the chance to read the record or to have it read out to him or her and to make the corrections he or she deems necessary and then the witness must sign the record to attest to the truthfulness and correctness of its content to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. A co-signature by the investigator and interpreter, if any, concludes such a record.

33. Records of questions put to witnesses by the Prosecution and of the answers given constitute witness statements pursuant to Rule 66(A)(ii) of the Rules. It is necessary to disclose the questions put to the witness in order to make the statement intelligible. This obligation also follows from the fair trial guarantees stipulated in Articles 19 and 20 of the Statute. Furthermore, an accused must have access to the questions put to the witness in order to be able to prepare for cross-examination properly. At times, it may be impossible to assess the probative value of the witness’s answer without juxtaposing it with the relevant question. This may also affect a Chamber’s assessment of the credibility of the witness and the reliability of a testimony in its development. The record of the first interview with a witness is of the highest value because it is most likely to capture the witness’s recollection accurately, being closest in time to the events and less vulnerable to any subsequent influence.

34. Questions that were put to a witness – thus being part of the witness statement – have to be distinguished from “internal documents prepared by a party”,[3] which are not subject to disclosure under Rule 70(A) of the Rules, as an exception to the general disclosure obligation pursuant to Rule 66(A)(ii) of the Rules. A question once put to a witness is not an internal note any more; it does not fall within the ambit and thereby under the protection of Rule 70(A) of the Rules. If, however, counsel or another staff member of the Prosecution notes down a question prior to the interrogation, without putting this question to the witness, such a question is not subject to disclosure. Similarly, any note made by counsel or another staff member of the Prosecution in relation to the questioning of the witness is not subject to disclosure, unless it has been put to the witness.

35. The fact that a particular witness statement does not correspond to the standard set out above does not free a party from its obligation to disclose it to the other party pursuant to Rule 66(A)(ii) of the Rules. Furthermore, a witness statement which does not correspond to the standard set out above does not necessarily render the proceedings unfair. The Prosecution is obliged to make the witness statement available to the Defence in the form in which it has been recorded. However, something which is not in the possession of or accessible to the Prosecution cannot be subject to disclosure: nemo tenetur ad impossibile (no one is bound to an impossibility).[4]

36. Also, a statement not fulfilling the ideal standard set out above is not inadmissible as such. Pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the Rules, a Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value. However, any inconsistency of a witness statement with the standard set out above may be taken into consideration when assessing the probative value of the statement, if necessary.

198. In considering whether a defect in the indictment has been cured by subsequent disclosure, the question arises as to which party has the burden of proof on the matter. Although the Judgement in Kupreškić did not address this issue expressly, the Appeals Chamber’s discussion indicates that the burden in that case rested with the Prosecution. Kupreškić stated that, in the circumstances of that case, a breach of “the substantial safeguards that an indictment is intended to furnish to the accused” raised the presumption “that such a fundamental defect in the … Indictment did indeed cause injustice.”[1] The defect could only have been deemed harmless through a demonstration “that [the Accused’s] ability to prepare their defence was not materially impaired.”[2] Kupreškić clearly imposed the duty to make that showing on the Prosecution, since the absence of such a showing led the Appeals Chamber to “uph[o]ld the objections” of the accused.[3]

14. The Tribunal’s instruments do not prescribe qualification requirements for members of the staff of the Office of the Prosecutor appearing before it. While Rule 44(A) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules”) stipulates that a counsel engaged by a suspect or an accused “shall be considered qualified to represent a suspect or accused, provided that he is admitted to the practice of law in a State, or is a University professor of law,” the Rules and other instruments of the Tribunal contain no corresponding qualification provision for Prosecution counsel. In consequence, the integrity of the trial process before the Tribunal cannot be undermined, per se, by the status a Prosecution counsel may or may not have as a member of the bar in any State.

45. Following the Judgement of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the case of Prosecutor v. Furundžija, the Appeals Chamber held in Akayesu that “there is a presumption of impartiality that attaches to a Judge or a Tribunal and, consequently, partiality must be established on the basis of adequate and reliable evidence.”[1] On appeal, it is for the appealing party to rebut this presumption of impartiality. As stated in Furundžija in respect of a reasonable apprehension of bias, the Appellant bears the burden of adducing sufficient evidence to satisfy the Appeals Chamber that the Judges were not impartial.[2] In Furundžija the ICTY Appeals Chamber held that there is “a high threshold to reach in order to rebut the presumption of impartiality” and recalled that “disqualification is only made out by showing that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias by reason of prejudgement and this must be ‘firmly established’”.[3] The Appeals Chamber recently confirmed this position in the Judgement in the case of Rutaganda v. Prosecutor.[4]

98. The ordinary meaning of the term “accomplice” is “an associate in guilt, a partner in crime.”[1] Nothing in the Statute or the Rules of the Tribunal prohibits a Trial Chamber from relying upon testimony of those who were partners in crime of persons being tried before it. As stated above, a Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value.[2] Accomplice testimony is not per se unreliable, especially where an accomplice may be thoroughly cross-examined.[3] However, considering that accomplice witnesses may have motives or incentives to implicate the accused person before the Tribunal, a Chamber, when weighing the probative value of such evidence, is bound to carefully consider the totality of the circumstances in which it was tendered.[4] In the view of the Appeals Chamber, reliance upon evidence of accomplice witnesses per se does not constitute a legal error.

14. […] [W]hilst it may be the case that the allegation of witness RV in relation to Nyiramasuhuko’s presence at the installation of Ndayambaje in Muganza commune is not specifically pleaded in the indictment, this alone does not render the evidence inadmissible.

15. Indeed, pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the Rules, the Trial Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value. It should be recalled that admissibility of evidence should not be confused with the assessment of the weight to be accorded to that evidence, an issue to be decided by the Trial Chamber after hearing the totality of the evidence. Consequently, although on the basis of the present indictment it is not possible to convict Nyiramasuhuko in respect of her presence at the installation of Ndayambaje, evidence of this meeting can be admitted to the extent that it may be relevant to the proof of any allegation pleaded in the Indictment.

16. The Appeals Chamber considers therefore that the Trial Chamber acted within its discretion in dismissing the Appellants’ request to declare the evidence of witness RV inadmissible.

9.       First, it is a matter of principle that the parties to a case have a right to be heard before a decision is made which can affect their rights.  The ICTY Appeal Judgment in Jelisić states thus:

In the view of the Appeals Chamber, the fact that a Trial Chamber has a right to decide proprio motu entitles it to make a decision whether or not invited to do so by a party; but the fact that it can do so does not relieve it of the normal duty of a judicial body first to hear a party whose rights can be affected by the decision to be made.  Failure to hear a party against whom the Trial Chamber is provisionally inclined is not consistent with the requirement to hold a fair trial.  The Rules must be read on this basis, that is to say, that they include a right of the parties to be heard in accordance with the judicial character of the Trial Chamber.  The availability of this right to the prosecution and its exercise of the right can be of importance to the making of a correct decision by the Trial Chamber: the latter could benefit in substantial ways from the analysis of the evidence made by the prosecution and from its argument on the applicable law.[1]

10.     Secondly, Rule 15bis (D) provides for a right of appeal from a decision made by the remaining judges of a Trial Chamber pursuant to that provision.  The existence of such a right of appeal itself implies that the parties have a right to be heard at the making of the decision from which they appeal.  

8. It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole. […]

9. The question has also been considered by Trial Chambers of the ICTR, whose Statute contains an identical definition of the crime of genocide.  These Chambers arrived at the same conclusion.  In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.”  This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group.

[…]

12. The intent requirement of genocide under Article 4 of the Statute is therefore satisfied where evidence shows that the alleged perpetrator intended to destroy at least a substantial part of the protected group.  The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations.  The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry.  The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group.  In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration.  If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4.

13. The historical examples of genocide also suggest that the area of the perpetrators’ activity and control, as well as the possible extent of their reach, should be considered.  Nazi Germany may have intended only to eliminate Jews within Europe alone; that ambition probably did not extend, even at the height of its power, to an undertaking of that enterprise on a global scale.  Similarly, the perpetrators of genocide in Rwanda did not seriously contemplate the elimination of the Tutsi population beyond the country’s borders.  The intent to destroy formed by a perpetrator of genocide will always be limited by the opportunity presented to him.  While this factor alone will not indicate whether the targeted group is substantial, it can - in combination with other factors - inform the analysis.

14. These considerations, of course, are neither exhaustive nor dispositive.  They are only useful guidelines.  The applicability of these factors, as well as their relative weight, will vary depending on the circumstances of a particular case.

See also para. 8 (part) and paras. 9–11.

32. In determining that genocide occurred at Srebrenica, the cardinal question is whether the intent to commit genocide existed.  While this intent must be supported by the factual matrix, the offence of genocide does not require proof that the perpetrator chose the most efficient method to accomplish his objective of destroying the targeted part.  Even where the method selected will not implement the perpetrator’s intent to the fullest, leaving that destruction incomplete, this ineffectiveness alone does not preclude a finding of genocidal intent.  The international attention focused on Srebrenica, combined with the presence of the UN troops in the area, prevented those members of the VRS Main Staff who devised the genocidal plan from putting it into action in the most direct and efficient way.  Constrained by the circumstances, they adopted the method which would allow them to implement the genocidal design while minimizing the risk of retribution.

33. The Trial Chamber - as the best assessor of the evidence presented at trial - was entitled to conclude that the evidence of the transfer [of women, children, and elderly within the Sebrenica enclave to other areas of Muslim-controlled Bosnia] supported its finding that some members of the VRS Main Staff intended to destroy the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica.  The fact that the forcible transfer does not constitute in and of itself a genocidal act[6] does not preclude a Trial Chamber from relying on it as evidence of the intentions of members of the VRS Main Staff.  The genocidal intent may be inferred, among other facts, from evidence of “other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group.”

Inferring intent from the factual circumstances of the crime:

[…]

34. The Defence also argues that the record contains no statements by members of the VRS Main Staff indicating that the killing of the Bosnian Muslim men was motivated by genocidal intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica.[8]  The absence of such statements is not determinative.  Where direct evidence of genocidal intent is absent, the intent may still be inferred from the factual circumstances of the crime.[9]  The inference that a particular atrocity was motivated by genocidal intent may be drawn, moreover, even where the individuals to whom the intent is attributable are not precisely identified.  If the crime committed satisfies the other requirements of genocide, and if the evidence supports the inference that the crime was motivated by the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group, a finding that genocide has occurred may be entered.

35. In this case, the factual circumstances, as found by the Trial Chamber, permit the inference that the killing of the Bosnian Muslim men was done with genocidal intent.  As already explained, the scale of the killing, combined with the VRS Main Staff’s awareness of the detrimental consequences it would have for the Bosnian Muslim community of Srebrenica and with the other actions the Main Staff took to ensure that community’s physical demise, is a sufficient factual basis for the finding of specific intent.  The Trial Chamber found, and the Appeals Chamber endorses this finding, that the killing was engineered and supervised by some members of the Main Staff of the VRS.[10]  The fact that the Trial Chamber did not attribute genocidal intent to a particular official within the Main Staff may have been motivated by a desire not to assign individual culpability to persons not on trial here.  This, however, does not undermine the conclusion that Bosnian Serb forces carried out genocide against the Bosnian Muslims.

189. The Defence submits that the Rule 68 disclosures of 25 June 2000 and 5 March 2001 made during trial were buried beneath other material provided at the time, and that the failure of the Prosecution to identify the disclosed material as being disclosed under Rule 68 breached the spirit and letter of that Rule.[1] In response, the Prosecution argues that there is no specific requirement obliging it to indicate the provision in accordance with which a disclosure of documents occurs, or to identify the specific material disclosed as exculpatory.[2]

190. The Appeals Chamber agrees with the Prosecution that Rule 68 does not require the Prosecution to identify the material being disclosed to the Defence as exculpatory. The jurisprudence of the Tribunal shows that while some Trial Chambers have recognised that it would be fairer for the Prosecution to do so,[3] there is no prima facie requirement, absent an order of the Trial Chamber to that effect, that it must do so.

191. However, the fact that there is no prima facie obligation on the Prosecution to identify the disclosed Rule 68 material as exculpatory does not prevent the accused from arguing, as a ground of appeal, that he suffered prejudice as a result of the Prosecution’s failure to do so.