104. The Appeals Chamber recalls that, pursuant to Rule 104(C) of the Rules, if the single judge finds an accused guilty on one or more of the charges contained in an indictment, he shall impose a sentence in respect of each finding of guilt and indicate whether such sentences shall be served consecutively or concurrently. Neither the Statute nor the Rules vest in the single judge the power to order that a sentence for contempt be served concurrently with a previous sentence imposed on the same accused in separate proceedings under a different indictment before the ICTY, the ICTR, or the Mechanism.

105. In addition, the Appeals Chamber is not persuaded by Ngirabatware’s submission that, similar to the authority to suspend a sentence, the authority to impose a concurrent sentence is part of the single judge’s inherent power to determine the appropriate sentence.[1] The ICTY Appeals Chamber has previously recognized that the decision to suspend a sentence for contempt forms an integral part of a trial chamber’s judicial discretion in the determination of the sentence.[2] However, the power to suspend a sentence for contempt in a single proceeding is distinguishable from the power to order that a sentence for contempt run concurrently with another sentence imposed on the accused in separate proceedings by different judges, concerning unrelated charges under different indictments. The differences are such that the Appeals Chamber cannot accept that the authority to impose a concurrent sentence for contempt is part of the inherent power of the Single Judge in the circumstances of this case.