De novo sentence on appeal
|Appeal Judgement - 20.02.2001||
DELALIĆ et al. (Čelebići)
724. The Appeals Chamber reiterates that “[t]he appeal process of the International Tribunal is not designed for the purpose of allowing parties to remedy their own failings or oversights during trial or sentencing.” Appeal proceedings are rather of a “corrective nature” and, contrary to Land‘o’s submissions, they do not amount to a trial de novo. Therefore, to the extent that the parties simply resubmit arguments presented at trial without pointing to a particular error, this misconceives the purpose of appellate review on sentence.
725. The test to be applied in relation to the issue as to whether a sentence should be revised is that most recently confirmed in the Furund‘ija Appeal Judgement. Accordingly, as a general rule, the Appeals Chamber will not substitute its sentence for that of a Trial Chamber unless “it believes that the Trial Chamber has committed an error in exercising its discretion, or has failed to follow applicable law.” The Appeals Chamber will only intervene if it finds that the error was “discernible”. As long as a Trial Chamber does not venture outside its “discretionary framework” in imposing sentence, the Appeals Chamber will not intervene. […]
 Prosecutor v Dra‘en Erdemović, Case No IT-96-22-A, Judgement, 7 Oct 1997, para 15.
 Prosecutor v Duško Tadić, Case No IT-94-1-A, Decision on Appellant’s Motion for the Extension of the Time-Limit and Admission of Additional Evidence, 15 Oct 1998, paras 41 - 42.
 Furund‘jia Appeal Judgement, para 239.
 Serushago Sentencing Appeal Judgement, para 32. See also Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para 187 and Tadić Sentencing Appeal Judgement, paras 20-22.
 Tadić Sentencing Appeal Judgement, para. 22. Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para 187.
 Tadić Sentencing Appeal Judgement, para. 20.
|Appeal Judgement - 17.03.2009||
Download full document
Although the Appeals Chamber has quashed the majority of Krajišnik’s convictions, it decided not to remand the case for retrial and to determine the appropriate sentence for the remaining convictions itself (paras 797-801). In so doing, the Appeals Chamber took into account the following factors: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, individual and affirmative prevention, the general practice regarding prison sentences in the courts of the former Yugoslavia, the gravity of the crime(s) of the totality of an accused’s conduct, and the individual circumstances of an accused (paras 802-817).