Paras 599-601: mere facilitation by an accused of his transfer to the International Tribunal cannot be considered voluntary surrender. Nevertheless, the underlying rationale for treating voluntary surrender in mitigation also applies to an indictee’s facilitation of the transfer process. The Appeals Chamber found that Martinović facilitated his transfer. As such, this factor should have been considered in mitigation, and the Trial Chamber erred in finding that it “cannot” be considered. 

344. […] Nor does the Prosecution demonstrate error in the weight accorded by the Trial Chamber to Jokić’s voluntary surrender. The Prosecution argues that an accused is under an obligation to surrender to the International Tribunal,[1] but this does not mean that doing so may not be considered in mitigation,[2] as the Trial Chamber did here. Although voluntary surrender is not cooperation with the Prosecution per se, it is cooperation with the International Tribunal, and the Trial Chamber could consider it a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber dismisses this sub-ground of the appeal. […]