As one of preliminary matters, Karadžić argued that the Trial Chamber erred in considering his six, allegedly distinct and unrelated motions, in one consolidated decision thus violating his right to reasoned opinion. The Appeals Chamber clarified:

27. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Trial Chamber is endowed with a considerable degree of discretion in deciding issues of practice and procedure, including the issue of whether to consider similar motions together.[1] To this extent, the Appeals Chamber notes that the joint consideration of the six motions submitted by Karadžić does not per se amount to an error. [See also infra, para. 28.]

30. With respect to Karadžić’s claim that the Impugned Decision lacked reasoned support, the Appeals Chamber emphasises that while a Trial Chamber must provide reasoning in support of its findings on the substantive considerations relevant for a decision, it is not required to articulate every step of its reasoning.[2] Nor is the Trial Chamber required to discuss at length all the Tribunal’s case-law on a certain legal issue. Rather, it must identify the precedents on which its findings are based.[3]

31. In the instant case, in determining that none of the six motions submitted by Karadžić amounts to a challenge to jurisdiction within the terms of Rule 72(D)(iv), the Trial Chamber considered the Tribunal’s jurisprudence where “challenges of a similar nature” have been brought.[4] […] Having satisfied itself that the Preliminary Motion raised similar challenges as discussed in the cited jurisprudence, the Trial Chamber concluded that “[f]or these reasons […] none of the Motions amounts to a challenge to jurisdiction within the terms of Rule 72(D)(iv)”.[5]

32.     While it may have been desirable for the Trial Chamber to indicate explicitly the relevance of the cited jurisprudence to the Motions on Omission Liability and Superior Responsibility, Karadžić fails to show that the Trial Chamber’s reasoning, as a whole, was insufficient. As to the Motion on Special Intent Crimes, the Trial Chamber explicitly observed that the arguments advanced by Karadžić are similar to those discussed and dismissed by the Appeals Chamber in the Tolimir Decision.[6] Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber rejects Karadžić’s submission that the Trial Chamber failed to provide sufficient reasoning in dismissing the jurisdictional nature of the motion.