Binding force of trial judgements on each other
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
---|---|---|
Appeal Judgement - 24.03.2000 |
ALEKSOVSKI Zlatko (IT-95-14/1-A) |
|
114. The Appeals Chamber considers that decisions of Trial Chambers, which are bodies with coordinate jurisdiction, have no binding force on each other, although a Trial Chamber is free to follow the decision of another Trial Chamber if it finds that decision persuasive. |
||
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
Appeal Judgement - 29.09.2014 |
KAREMERA & NGIRUMPATSE (ICTR-98-44-A) |
|
52. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that decisions of individual trial chambers have no binding force on other trial chambers.[1] A trial chamber must make its own final assessment of the evidence on the basis of the totality of the evidence presented in the case before it.[2] Consequently, two reasonable triers of facts may reach different but equally reasonable conclusions when determining the probative value of the evidence presented at trial.[3] Likewise, the Appeals Chamber considers that an assessment as to whether the defence has been prejudiced by the Prosecution’s disclosure violations and whether a remedy is appropriate depends on the particular circumstances of the case.[4] An error cannot be established by simply demonstrating that other trial chambers have exercised their discretion in a different way.[5] See also paras 257, 262, 439, 543. [1] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 260; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 114. See also The Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case Nos. ICTR-98-41-AR73 and ICTR-98-41-AR73(B), Decision on Interlocutory Appeals of Decision on Witness Protection Orders, 6 October 2005, para. 33. [2] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 260; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 346. [3] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 396; Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, paras. 11, 12. [4] See, e.g., Mugenzi and Mugiraneza Appeal Judgement, paras. 39, 43-46, 54, 55; Kalimanzira Appeal Judgement, paras. 18-22. [5] Lukić and Lukić Appeal Judgement, para. 396. See also Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 12. |