Manifestly inadequate sentence

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 19.03.2019 KARADŽIĆ Radovan
(MICT-13-55-A)

766. The Appeals Chamber understands that the Prosecution does not challenge the Trial Chamber’s factual determinations regarding the gravity of crimes, but rather contends that the sentence it imposed on Karadžić was “manifestly inadequate” and unreasonable given the “unprecedented gravity” of his crimes.[1] Taking into account the Trial Chamber’s conclusions reflecting the magnitude of Karadžić’s crimes, the Appeals Chamber is in agreement with the Prosecution’s position. While fully cognizant of the Trial Chamber’s discretion in sentencing, the Appeals Chamber considers that the 40-year sentence inadequately reflects the extraordinary gravity of Karadžić’s crimes as well as his central and instrumental participation in four joint criminal enterprises, which spanned more than four years and covered a large number of municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

767. The incongruence between the gravity of Karadžić’s crimes and his 40-year sentence is apparent when Karadžić’s crimes and punishment are compared to the life sentences imposed on Tolimir, Beara, Popović, and Galić for their responsibility in only a fraction of Karadžić’s crimes. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber did not explicitly consider these cases in its determination of Karadžić’s sentence.[2] The Appeals Chamber recalls that trial chambers are under no obligation to expressly compare the case of one accused to that of another.[3] Moreover, it is settled jurisprudence that any given case may contain a multitude of variables, ranging from the number and type of crimes committed to the personal circumstances of the individual.[4] However, a “disparity between sentences rendered in similar cases may be considered ‘capricious or excessive’, hence warranting the intervention of the Appeals Chamber, ‘if it is out of reasonable proportion with a line of sentences passed in similar circumstances for the same offences’”.[5]

See also paras. 768 to 771.

[…]

772. In the present case, the Appeals Chamber observes the Trial Chamber’s findings that Galić was a named member of the Sarajevo JCE,[6] and that Tolimir,[7] Beara,[8] and Popović[9] either supported or were named members of the Srebrenica JCE. Additionally, as noted above, these individuals were high‑ranking members of the VRS or the SRK, which were under Karadžić’s “authority” as the President of Republika Srpska and Supreme Commander of its forces.[10] The fact that Tolimir, Beara, Popović, and Galić were each sentenced to life imprisonment for participating in only one of the four joint criminal enterprises involved in this case, and the fact that they were subordinated to Karadžić, further demonstrates that the 40-year sentence imposed on Karadžić was inadequate.

773. Given the above, the Appeals Chamber considers that the sentence of 40 years imposed on Karadžić by the Trial Chamber underestimates the extraordinary gravity of Karadžić’s responsibility and his integral participation in “the most egregious of crimes” that were committed throughout the entire period of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and were noted for their “sheer scale” and “systematic cruelty”.[11] In the circumstances of this case, the sentence the Trial Chamber imposed was so unreasonable and plainly unjust that the Appeals Chamber can only infer that the Trial Chamber failed to properly exercise its discretion.

774. The Appeals Chamber finds, Judges de Prada and Rosa dissenting, that the Trial Chamber committed a discernible error and abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of only 40 years of imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber, Judges de Prada and Rosa dissenting, therefore grants Ground 4 of the Prosecution’s appeal.[12] The impact of this finding is addressed below.

[…]

776. […] In light of Karadžić’s position at the apex of power in Republika Srpska and its military, his instrumental and integral participation in the four joint criminal enterprises, the scale and systematic cruelty of the crimes committed, the large number of victims, the continued impact of these crimes on victims who have survived, as well as the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, the Appeals Chamber, Judges de Prada and Rosa dissenting, finds that the only appropriate sentence in the circumstances of this case is imprisonment for the remainder of Karadžić’s life.

See also para. 777.

[1] See Prosecution Appeal Brief, paras. 7, 148-172, 180; Prosecution Reply Brief, paras. 69-72. See also T. 24 April 2018 p. 295.

[2] The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber only explicitly considered the sentences imposed on Biljana Plavšić (11 years) and Momčilo Krajišnik (20 years) that were argued by the Defence at trial. See Trial Judgement, paras. 6066, 6067. 

[3] See Prlić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 3340; Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 443.

[4] See, e.g., Prlić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 3341; Nyiramasuhuko et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 3400; Ntabakuze Appeal Judgement, para. 298. A trial chamber’s primary responsibility is to tailor the penalty to fit the individual circumstances of the accused. See, e.g., Prlić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 3341; Nyiramasuhuko et al. Appeal Judgement, paras. 3400, 3453, 3512; Popović et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 2093; Ntabakuze Appeal Judgement, para. 298.

[5] See Prlić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 3340; Đorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 949 and references cited therein.

[6] See Trial Judgement, paras. 4680, 4707, 4708, 4892, 4932, 5997.

[7] In finding that the common plan to eliminate Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica was formed and executed in conditions designed to ensure its secrecy to the greatest extent possible, the Trial Chamber considered “Tolimir’s proposal to remove the detainees from locations where they could be sighted”. See Trial Judgement, para. 5734. The Trial Chamber also considered that Karadžić was constantly kept abreast of developments on the ground, and this was achieved particularly through briefings by high-ranking officers, including Tolimir, who was already on the ground near Srebrenica. See Trial Judgement, para. 5801.

[8] The Trial Chamber found that Beara was a member of the Srebrenica JCE. See Trial Judgement, paras. 5737, 5830, 5998.

[9] The Trial Chamber found that Popović was a member of the Srebrenica JCE. See Trial Judgement, paras. 5733, 5737, 5830, 5998.

[10] See, e.g., Trial Judgement, paras. 4885, 4891, 4938, 5821, 6047, 6052.

[11] See Trial Judgement, para. 6046.

[12] [Footnote omitted].

Download full document