22. […] In general, the Appeals Chamber has the power to reconsider past decisions, particularly “where it was realized that the previous decision was erroneous or where it has caused an injustice.”[1] […]

23. […] It is clear that the Appeals Chamber normally has the power to reconsider its prior decisions.[2] […] While the Appeals Chamber once held that it has the inherent power to reconsider final judgements,[3] it has since taken a different position and held that there is no inherent power to reconsider final judgements.[4]

9. Pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber “may, on good cause being shown by motion, authorise a variation of the grounds of appeal” contained in the notice of appeal. Such motions should be submitted “as soon as possible after identifying the new alleged error”[1] of the Trial Chamber to be included in the notice of appeal or after discovering any other basis for seeking a variation to the notice of appeal. Generally, “a request to amend a notice of appeal must, at least, explain precisely what amendments are sought and why, with respect to each such amendment, the 'good cause’ requirement of Rule 108 is satisfied”.[2]

13. In sum, variations to the notice of appeal will only be allowed (i) for good cause reasons within the meaning of Rule 108, as defined by the above-discussed principles; (ii) if they remedy the counsel’s negligence or inadvertence and are of substantial importance to the success of the appeal; or (iii) if they otherwise correct ambiguity or error made by counsel and do not unduly delay the appeal proceedings, as, for example, in the case of minor and non-substantive modifications. With respect to the revisions to the appeal brief (or, in the alternative, supplemental briefing), they will be permitted only (i) as necessary to reflect the amendments to the notice of appeal; or (ii) as necessary to correct ambiguity or error in the counsel’s filings, without unduly delaying the appeal proceedings.[3]

21. As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Appellant seeks to have his Notice of Appeal modified only as a consequence of including the newly submitted grounds of appeal into his Appellant’s Brief. Rule 108 of the Rules clearly applies to seeking a variation of the notice of appeal and, where leave is granted to amend the notice of appeal, the appellant may be granted leave to amend the appeals brief to reflect the amendment to the notice of appeal. Nevertheless, the Appeals Chamber will consider the Motion of 6 March 2006 as requesting the variation of grounds of appeal contained in both the Notice of Appeal and the Appellant’s Brief simultaneously. Since the variations of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal sought by his Motion of 5 July 2006 are of a broader scope than the newly submitted grounds of appeal, the Appeals Chamber will address the former in a separate section of the present decision.[4]

4. […] The Appeals Chamber recalls that requests for reconsideration “are the product of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, and are permissible only under certain conditions”.[1] In particular, such a request by definition has to be made before the same Chamber that rendered the impugned decision […].

13. A Trial Chamber may nevertheless always reconsider a decision it has previously made, not only because of a change of circumstances but also where it is realised that the
previous decision was erroneous or that it has caused an injustice.[1]  Where such a decision is changed, there will be a need in every case for the Trial Chamber to consider with great care and to deal with the consequences of the change upon the proceedings which have in the meantime been conducted in accordance with the original decision.

RECALLING ALSO that circumstances that may merit reconsideration include new facts and that, to succeed on that basis, an applicant must demonstrate how any new facts justify reconsideration;

748. Pursuant to Article 24 of the ICTY Statute and Rule 101(B) of the ICTY Rules, trial chambers must take into account the following factors in sentencing: (i) the gravity of the offence or totality of the culpable conduct; (ii) the individual circumstances of the convicted person; (iii) the general practice regarding prison sentences in the courts of the former Yugoslavia; and (iv) aggravating and mitigating circumstances.[1]

749. The Appeals Chamber recalls that appeals against the sentence, as appeals from a trial judgement, are appeals stricto sensu; they are of a corrective nature and are not trials de novo.[2] Trial chambers are vested with a broad discretion in determining an appropriate sentence, due to their obligation to individualize the penalties to fit the circumstances of the accused and the gravity of the crime.[3] As a general rule, the Appeals Chamber will not revise a sentence unless the trial chamber has committed a “discernible error” in exercising its discretion or has failed to follow the applicable law.[4] It is for the party challenging the sentence to demonstrate how the trial chamber ventured outside its discretionary framework in imposing the sentence.[5] To show that the trial chamber committed a discernible error in exercising its discretion, an appellant must demonstrate that the trial chamber gave weight to extraneous or irrelevant considerations, failed to give weight or sufficient weight to relevant considerations, made a clear error as to the facts upon which it exercised its discretion, or that its decision was so unreasonable or plainly unjust that the Appeals Chamber is able to infer that the trial chamber failed to properly exercise its discretion.[6]