24. Marijačić was convicted of contempt for the disclosure of information in knowing violation of an order of a Chamber pursuant to Rule 77(A)(ii). The Trial Chamber rightly pointed out that the order in question applies to all persons coming into possession of the protected information, given that Rule 79 is directed at the public in general, including the press, being present in court or not. Also, Rule 77(A)(ii) as such gives jurisdiction to the International Tribunal to hold in contempt any person who discloses information relating to proceedings before the International Tribunal in knowing violation of an order of a Chamber. This is necessary in particular in order to comply with the International Tribunal’s obligation pursuant to Article 22 of the Statute to protect witnesses on whose behalf protective measures have been ordered, and it is ultimately necessary for the International Tribunal to fulfil its mandate.[1] […]

2. The Appeal purports to proceed as an interlocutory appeal as of right under Rule 72(B)(i) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal (“Rules”), which states that preliminary motions are without interlocutory appeal, except “in the case of motions challenging jurisdiction.”[1] Rule 72(D) of the Rules expands on this provision by stating that, for purposes of Rule 72(B)(i) of the Rules, a “motion challenging jurisdiction refers exclusively to a motion which challenges an indictment on the ground that it does not relate to” the personal, territorial or temporal jurisdiction of the Tribunal, or to any of the violations enumerated in Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Statute.

7. The decisions of the Appeals Chamber, as well as the decisions of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda under an identical provision of that Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, make clear that an appeal concerning an issue whether a charge in an indictment falls within a statutory grant of jurisdiction meets the requirements of Rule 72(D) of the Rules and may proceed.[2] This Appeal satisfies the requirements of Rule 72(D)(iv) of the Rules and may therefore proceed.

23.     [...] [T]he Applicants contend that the Appeals Chamber is authorised or at least not precluded by the Rules to issue an interlocutory decision that would terminate proceedings because of a violation of an accused’s rights. They rely on Rule 54, which, in conjunction with Rule 107 of the Rules, permits the Appeals Chamber to issue orders as necessary for the conduct of proceedings.[1] The Appeals Chamber notes that the application of Rule 54 is discretionary and dependent upon the necessity of the relevant order for the conduct of the proceedings.[2] The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that it has the authority to consider an allegation of judicial bias in an interlocutory decision at this stage in the appeal proceedings under this rule.

20.     Neither the Statute nor the Rules explicitly regulate motions for a declaration of mistrial or to vacate a trial judgement. Pursuant to Rules 54 and 107 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber may issue such orders as may be necessary for the conduct of proceedings.[1]

314. […] However, as will now be explained, it was open to the Trial Chamber to rely, for certain purposes, on evidence in respect of events prior to 1994.

315. It is well established that the provisions of the Statute on the temporal jurisdiction of the Tribunal do not preclude the admission of evidence on events prior to 1994, if the Chamber deems such evidence relevant and of probative value[1] and there is no compelling reason to exclude it. For example, a Trial Chamber may validly admit evidence relating to pre-1994 acts and rely on it where such evidence is aimed at:

- Clarifying a given context;[2]

- Establishing by inference the elements (in particular, criminal intent) of criminal conduct occurring in 1994;[3]

- Demonstrating a deliberate pattern of conduct.[4]

316. The Appeals Chamber accordingly dismisses the Appellants’ contentions that the Trial Chamber exceeded its jurisdiction or that it breached the fairness of the trial simply because it relied on evidence concerning pre-1994 events.

561. The Appeals Chamber recalls that it has already considered the Trial Chamber’s interpretation of the Tribunal’s temporal jurisdiction and reaffirmed that Article 7 of the Statute does not prevent the admission of evidence of events prior to 1 January 1994, insofar as the Trial Chamber deemed such evidence relevant and of probative value, and there was no compelling reason to exclude it. This applies inter alia to evidence of criminal intent.[5] […]

647. […] The Appeals Chamber considers that paragraph 975 of the Judgement is ambiguous because it does not clearly explain whether the Appellant’s participation in CDR meetings prior to 1 January 1994 is cited as a material element of instigation for which the Appellant incurs individual responsibility pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Statute – which would be ultra vires – or whether this fact is simply mentioned as a contextual fact, or as evidence demonstrating the Appellant’s criminal intent in 1994 – which is permissible.[6] […]

9. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the International Tribunal, pursuant to Rule 77 of the Rules and in accordance with the International Tribunal’s consistent jurisprudence, possesses the inherent power to address conduct interfering with its administration of justice. The International Tribunal has both the subject matter and personal jurisdiction to prosecute contempt.

36. […] Rule 77(D)(i) provides in relevant part that that where a Chamber has directed the Prosecutor to investigate a potential matter of contempt with a view to preparing and submitting an indictment for contempt and “the Chamber considers that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against a person for contempt, the Chamber may […] direct the Prosecutor to prosecute the matter”. […] While Rule 77(D)(i) provides that a “Chamber” may direct the Prosecutor to prosecute a person for contempt, it does not preclude a Confirming Judge from authorizing the Prosecution to prosecute on behalf of the Trial Chamber that is seized with the matter.[1]

18. This power, known as the principle of "Kompetenz-Kompetenz" in German or "la compétence de la compétence" in French, is part, and indeed a major part, of the incidental or inherent jurisdiction of any judicial or arbitral tribunal, consisting of its "jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction." It is a necessary component in the exercise of the judicial function and does not need to be expressly provided for in the constitutive documents of those tribunals, although this is often done (see, e.g., Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 36, para. 6). But in the words of the International Court of Justice:

"[T]his principle, which is accepted by the general international law in the matter of arbitration, assumes particular force when the international tribunal is no longer an arbitral tribunal […] but is an institution which has been pre-established by an international instrument defining its jurisdiction and regulating its operation." (Nottebohm Case (Liech. v. Guat.), 1953 I.C.J. Reports 7, 119 (21 March).)

This is not merely a power in the hands of the tribunal. In international law, where there is no integrated judicial system and where every judicial or arbitral organ needs a specific constitutive instrument defining its jurisdiction, "the first obligation of the Court - as of any other judicial body - is to ascertain its own competence." (Judge Cordova, dissenting opinion, advisory opinion on Judgements of the Administrative Tribunal of the I.L.O. upon complaints made against the U.N.E.S.C.O., 1956 I.C.J. Reports, 77, 163 (Advisory Opinion of 23 October)(Cordova, J., dissenting).)

[…]

22. In conclusion, the Appeals Chamber finds that the International Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the plea against its jurisdiction based on the invalidity of its establishment by the Security Council.

NOTING that Article 7 of the Statute of the Tribunal restricts the Tribunal's temporal jurisdiction to "a period beginning on 1 January 1994 and ending on 1 December 1994";

CONSIDERING therefore that no one may be indicted for a crime that was not committed between 1 January and 31 December 1994;

CONSIDERING however that the above cannot prevent an indictment from making reference, as an introduction, to crimes previously committed by an accused;

NOTING the decision by the Trial Chamber not to refer to events prior to 1994 except for historical purposes or as information and that it would not hold any accused accountable for crimes committed prior to 1994;

CONSIDERING that the question of the Tribunal's temporal jurisdiction does indeed fall within the scope of application of Rule 72 (D)^[[1]^] but that in the instant case the question lacks interest in that the Appeals Chamber is convinced that the Trial Chamber will not use events prior to 1994 as the sole factual basis for a count of the indictment; and that therefore the Trial Chamber did not overstep its temporal jurisdiction;

34. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the UNSC, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, has adopted the Statute by means of resolution and established the Tribunal as a measure contributing to the restoration and maintenance of peace in the former Yugoslavia.[1] The Statute, as the constitutive instrument of the Tribunal, defines the scope and limits of the Tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction.[2] In particular, Articles 1 to 9 of the Statute define the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione materiae, personae, loci and temporis. Article 1 of the Statute confers a general power for the Tribunal to prosecute “persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991”. There is no provision of the Statute which excludes any specific individual from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

39. Additionally, the Appeals Chamber considers that the Appellant is not advancing an argument concerning the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction when he claims that the Prosecution’s discretion not to prosecute an individual demonstrates that no UNSC resolution is necessary in order to limit the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.[1] The Appellant confuses the two distinct notions of jurisdiction and prosecutorial discretion. The scope of the substantive jurisdiction of the Tribunal is entirely contingent upon the constitutive instrument of the Tribunal itself, that is, its Statute. On a different level, in systems of criminal law not based on the rule of compulsory prosecution, like that of the Tribunal, prosecutors possess the discretion not to bring before the court cases that theoretically fall within the court’s jurisdiction. In other words, the fact that the Prosecution may decide not to prosecute an individual does not necessarily mean that, had the Prosecution decided to prosecute that individual, the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction over him or her. Jurisdiction and prosecutorial discretion are two independent issues.

41. The Appeals Chamber considers that, as a logical consequence of the two premises above, it follows that the alleged Agreement could not bind the Tribunal even if it were to be attributed to the Prosecution. The Appeals Chamber recalls that, while “[i]t is beyond question that the Prosecutor has a broad discretion in relation to the initiation of investigations and in the preparation of indictments”,[2] this discretion is not unlimited and must be exercised within the restrictions imposed by the Statute and the Rules.[3] Pursuant to the restrictions to the Prosecution’s discretion provided by Rule 51 of the Rules, the Prosecution was not in a position, at the time of the alleged Agreement, to withdraw the indictment against the Appellant without the leave of a Judge of the Tribunal.[4] Consequently, even if the involvement of the Prosecution in the making of the alleged Agreement were proved, the alleged Agreement would not be binding on the Tribunal, as an indictment against the Appellant had already been confirmed at the time.[5]

11. The Appeals Chamber recalls that interlocutory appeals on jurisdiction lie as of right under Rule 72(B)(i) of the Rules only where they challenge an indictment on the ground that it does not relate to the Tribunal’s personal, territorial, temporal or subject-matter jurisdiction.[1] The Appellant challenges the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over him because of the alleged illegality of his arrest.[2] However, he does not challenge the Indictment on any of the above-listed grounds. Consequently, Rule 72(D) of the Rules “cannot provide a basis for appeal of the Impugned Decision”.[3]

12. The alternative relief sought by the Appellant concerns the establishment of the circumstances of his arrest and a declaration as to its unlawful nature. These submissions equally go outside the scope of a jurisdictional challenge and therefore are not properly before the Appeals Chamber.

13. In light of the above, the Appeals Chamber considers that the Appellant should have requested the Trial Chamber’s authorization to lodge an appeal against the Impugned Decision[[5]] under Rule 73(B). Absent certification to appeal under Rule 73(B) of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber has no jurisdiction to address the merits of the Appeal.

NOTING that the Decision Varying Protective Measures was a ruling on an application filed before the Trial Chamber on 7 June 2011, prior to the pronouncement of the Trial Judgement;

CONSIDERING that, when a Chamber pronounces its judgement on the merits of a case before it, it retains jurisdiction to dispose of pending ancillary matters of which it is properly seised;

FINDING, therefore, that the Trial Chamber had jurisdiction over the matters it ruled upon in the Decision Varying Protective Measures;

NOTING further that the proceedings subject of the Decision Concerning Witness QA and the Decision Concerning Witnesses QY and SJ were initiated in 2008 and 2009, respectively, prior to the pronouncement of the Trial Judgement, and that proceedings for contempt and false testimony “are independent of the proceedings out of which they arise”;

FINDING, therefore, that the Trial Chamber had jurisdiction over the matters it ruled upon in the Decision Concerning Witness QA and the Decision Concerning Witnesses QY and SJ;

Tarčulovski contended that purely domestic acts carried out by a sovereign State in self-defence were outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Appeals Chamber dismissed his argument.

31. […] The fact that a State resorted to force in self-defence in an internal armed conflict against an armed group does not, in and of itself, prevent the qualification of crimes committed therein as serious violations of international humanitarian law.[1] As the Appeals Chamber has stated, “whether an attack was ordered as pre-emptive, defensive or offensive is from a legal point of view irrelevant […]. The issue at hand is whether the way the military action was carried out [during an armed conflict] was criminal or not.”[2]

32. […] In the present case, having been satisfied that there had been an armed conflict in the FYROM at the times relevant to the Indictment and that the alleged crimes had been sufficiently linked with the armed conflict, the Trial Chamber correctly concluded that all the charged crimes (murder, wanton destruction and cruel treatment) constitute serious violations of international humanitarian law,[3] irrespective of the question whether the FYROM was conducting a lawful operation in self-defence against “terrorists” on its territory.[4]

52. The Appeals Chamber recalls that pursuant to Article 1 of the Statute, the Tribunal is not limited in its jurisdiction to prosecute persons of a specific level of authority.[1] Indeed, a number of accused who had low-ranking positions in the military or the police or did not have any official position at all have been prosecuted and convicted by the Tribunal.[2] Hence, the subordinate role of an accused is legally irrelevant in determining his individual criminal responsibility. […]

13. There is no mention in the Tribunal’s Statute of its power to deal with contempt. The Tribunal does, however, possess an inherent jurisdiction, deriving from its judicial function, to ensure that its exercise of the jurisdiction which is expressly given to it by that Statute is not frustrated and that its basic judicial functions are safeguarded.[1] As an international criminal court, the Tribunal must therefore possess the inherent power to deal with conduct which interferes with its administration of justice. The content of that inherent power may be discerned by reference to the usual sources of international law.

14. There is no specific customary international law directly applicable to this issue. There is an international analogue available, by way of conventional international law, in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (an annexure to the 1945 London Agreement)[2] which gave to that tribunal the power to deal summarily with “any contumacy” by “imposing appropriate punishment, including exclusion of any Defendant or his Counsel from some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the determination of the charges”.[3] Although no contempt matter arose before the International Military Tribunal itself, three contempt matters were dealt with by United States Military Tribunals sitting in Nurnberg in accordance with the Allied Control Council Law No 10 (20 December 1945), whereby war crimes trials were heard by the four Allied Powers in their respective zones of occupation in Germany. That Law incorporated the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. The US Military Tribunals interpreted their powers as including the power to punish contempt of court.[4]

15. It is otherwise of assistance to look to the general principles of law common to the major legal systems of the world, as developed and refined (where applicable) in international jurisprudence.[5] Historically, the law of contempt originated as, and has remained, a creature of the common law. The general concept of contempt is said to be unknown to the civil law, but many civil law systems have legislated to provide offences which produce a similar result.

See also paras. 16-17.

18. A power in the Tribunal to punish conduct which tends to obstruct, prejudice or abuse its administration of justice is a necessity in order to ensure that its exercise of the jurisdiction which is expressly given to it by its Statute is not frustrated and that its basic judicial functions are safeguarded. Thus the power to deal with contempt is clearly within its inherent jurisdiction.[6] That is not to say that the Tribunal’s powers to deal with contempt or conduct interfering with the administration of justice are in every situation the same as those possessed by domestic courts, because its jurisdiction as an international court must take into account its different setting within the basic structure of the international community.[7]

19. This Tribunal has, since its creation, assumed the right to punish for contempt. The original Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopted on 11 February 1994, provided by Rule 77 (“Contempt of Court”) for a fine or a term of imprisonment where — subject to the provisions of what is now Rule 90(F), which permits a witness to object to making any statement which may tend to incriminate him or her — a witness “refuses or fails contumaciously to answer a question relevant to the issue before a Chamber”. In January 1995, such punishment was also made applicable to a person who attempts to interfere with or intimidate a witness, and any judgment of a Chamber under Rule 77 was made subject to appeal.[8] In July 1997, such punishment was also made applicable to any party, witness or other person participating in proceedings before a Chamber who discloses information relating to the proceedings in violation of an order of the Chamber. Both of these additions expressly identified the relevant conduct as “contempt”.

24. Care must be taken not to treat the considerable amount of elaboration which has occurred in relation to Rule 77 over the years as if it has produced a statutory form of offence enacted by the judges of the Tribunal, notwithstanding the form in which Sub-rules (A) to (D) may be expressed. Article 15 of the Tribunal’s Statute gives power to the judges to adopt only-

[…] rules of procedure and evidence for the conduct of the pre-trial phase of the proceedings, trials and appeals, the admission of evidence, the protection of victims and witnesses and other appropriate matters.[9]

That power does not permit rules to be adopted which constitute new offences, but it does permit the judges to adopt rules of procedure and evidence for the conduct of matters falling within the inherent jurisdiction of the Tribunal as well as matters within its statutory jurisdiction.[10] As stated earlier, the content of these inherent powers may be discerned by reference to the usual sources of international law, but not by reference to the wording of the rule.

25. Sub-rules (A) to (D) are statements of what was seen by the judges at Plenary meetings of the Tribunal to reflect the jurisprudence upon those aspects of the law of contempt as are applicable to the Tribunal. Those statements do not displace the underlying law; both the Tribunal and the parties remain bound by that underlying law.[11]

26. In the opinion of the Appeals Chamber:

(a) the inherent power of the Tribunal as an international criminal court to deal with contempt is for present purposes adequately encompassed by the wording of the reservation inserted in Rule 77 in November 1997 — that the Tribunal has the power “to hold in contempt those who knowingly and wilfully interfere with its administration of justice” — as such conduct would necessarily fall within the general concept of contempt, being “conduct which tends to obstruct, prejudice or abuse the administration of justice”;[12] and

(b) each of the formulations in the current Rules 77(A) to (D), when interpreted in the light of that statement of the Tribunal’s inherent power, falls within — but does not limit — that inherent power, as each clearly amounts to knowingly and wilfully interfering with the Tribunal’s administration of justice.

28. […] The inherent power of the Tribunal to deal with contempt has necessarily existed ever since its creation, and the existence of that power does not depend upon a reference being made to it in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. As the Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the current formulation of Rules 77(A) to (D) falls within that inherent power, the amendments made in December 1998 did not increase the nature of the conduct which amounts to contempt to the prejudice of the Respondent’s rights.[13]

See also paras. 20-23.

NOTE: IN NOVEMBER 1997 SHORTLY AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD IN THIS CASE, RULE 77 WAS AMENDED AND IT PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

(A) Any person who

(i) being a witness before a Trial Chamber, contumaciously refuses or fails to answer a question,

(ii) interferes with or intimidates a witness who is giving, has given, or is about to give evidence before a Trial Chamber,

(iii) discloses information relating to those proceedings in knowing violation of an order of the Chamber, or

(iv) without just excuse fails to comply with an order to attend before or produce documents before a Chamber,

commits a contempt of the Tribunal.

(B) When a Chamber has good reason to believe that a person may be in contempt of the Tribunal it may call on that person that he or she may be found to be in contempt. After affording such person an opportunity to appear and answer personally or by counsel, the Chamber may, if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, find the person to be in contempt of the Tribunal and impose a fine not exceeding Dfl. 20,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, to be served as provided in Rule 103.

(C) Any person so called upon shall, if that person satisfies the criteria for determination of indigency established by the Registrar, be assigned counsel in accordance with Rule 45.

(D) Any decision rendered under this Rule shall be subject to appeal in cases where leave is granted by a bench of three Judges of the Appeals Chamber, upon good cause being shown. Applications for leave to appeal shall be filed within seven days of the impugned decision.

(E) Payment of a fine shall be made to the Registrar to be held in a separate account.

(F) Nothing in this Rule affects the inherent power of the Tribunal to hold in contempt those who knowingly and wilfully interfere with its administration of justice.

AT THE TIME OF THIS JUDGMENT, FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS IN DECEMBER 1998 RULE 77 (A) TO (E) PROVIDED:

(A) Any person who

(i) being a witness before a Chamber, contumaciously refuses or fails to answer a question,

(ii) discloses information relating to those proceedings in knowing violation of an order of a Chamber, or

(iii) without just excuse fails to comply with an order to attend before or produce documents before a Chamber,

commits a contempt of the Tribunal.

(B) Any person who threatens, intimidates, causes any injury or offers a bribe to, or otherwise interferes with, a witness who is giving, has given, or is about to give evidence in proceedings before a Chamber, or a potential witness, commits a contempt of the Tribunal.

(C) Any person who threatens, intimidates, offers a bribe to, or otherwise seeks to coerce any other person, with the intention of preventing that other person from complying with an obligation under an order of a Judge or Chamber, commits a contempt of the Tribunal.

(D) Incitement to commit, and attempts to commit, any of the acts punishable under this Rule are punishable as contempts of the Tribunal with the same penalties.

(E) Nothing in this Rule affects the inherent power of the Tribunal to hold in contempt those who knowingly and wilfully interfere with its administration of justice.

FURTHER AMENDMENTS WERE MADE TO RULE 77 IN DECEMBER 2000, DECEMBER 2001, JULY 2002 AND JULY 2009.

21.     […] In order to come within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione personae, any form of liability must satisfy three pre-conditions: (i) it must be provided for in the Statute, explicitly or implicitly; (ii) it must have existing under customary international law at the relevant time; (iii) the law providing for that form of liability must have been sufficiently accessible at the relevant time to anyone who acted in such a way; and (iv) such person must have been able to foresee that he could be held criminally liable for his actions if apprehended.

41. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber considered that Article 3 of the Statute covers not only violations which are based in customary international law but also those based on treaties. It found that Additional Protocol I constituted applicable treaty law in the present case,[1] and found that “whether [Additional Protocol I] reflected customary law at the relevant time in this case is beside the point.”[2]

42. The Appeals Chamber holds that the Trial Chamber’s approach is correct.

43. This approach is consistent with the language of Article 1 of the Statute granting the International Tribunal “competence to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia”. It is also consistent with Security Council Resolution 827 (1993) in which the Security Council expressed its determination “to take effective measures to bring to justice the persons who are responsible for [violations of international humanitarian law]”.[3] These instruments do not impose any restriction to customary international law, which is in line with the statements made in the Security Council at the time the Statute was adopted.[4]

44. The Trial Chamber’s approach is also in line with the Report of the Secretary-General in which he stated that:

the application of the principle nullum crimen sine lege requires that the international tribunal should apply rules of international humanitarian law which are beyond any doubt part of customary law so that the problem of adherence of some but not all States to specific conventions does not arise.[5]

The maxim of nullum crimen sine lege is also satisfied where a State is already treaty-bound by a specific convention, and the International Tribunal applies a provision of that convention irrespective of whether it is part of customary international law.[6]

At paras 81-84, the Appeals Chamber clarified its position in that respect. It concluded:

85. […] while binding conventional law that prohibits conduct and provides for individual criminal responsibility could provide the basis for the International Tribunal’s jurisdiction, in practice the International Tribunal always ascertains that the treaty provision in question is also declaratory of custom.

P. 4: CONSIDERING that the Appeals Chamber has the statutory duty to ensure the fairness of the proceedings on appeal[1] and, thus, has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Tribunal’s Registrar and President;

P. 4: CONSIDERING, however, that the exercise of such jurisdiction should be closely related to the fairness of proceedings on appeal and should not be used as a substitute for a general power of review which has not been expressly provided by the Rules of Detention;[2]

P. 4: CONSIDERING that the Appellant has not identified any impact by the issues raised in his Motion on his right to fair proceedings;

P. 4: FINDING that the detention conditions raised by the Appellant are not related to the fairness of proceedings on appeal and that, therefore, the Appellant’s right to fair proceedings has not been infringed by the outcome of the President’s Decision;

P. 4: FINDING, therefore, that the Appellant has exhausted all available remedies and that the Appeals Chamber has no jurisdiction in this matter

56.     The Appeals Chamber wishes to recall that it is not its place to interpret the actions of the United Nations in general and that, as an ad hoc United Nations judicial organ, the Tribunal issues decisions within its jurisdiction, as established by Security Council resolution 955,[1] and within the inherent jurisdiction of any tribunal[2].

B. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal over Article 3 Offences

12. The second complaint of the Appellants relates to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal over Counts 5, 6 and 7 in non-international armed conflicts. This is also a complaint that should have been made by the Appellants pre-trial pursuant to Rule 72. However, because the resolution of this issue will assist both the Appellants and the Prosecution in the further conduct of the trial proceedings, and the Trial Chamber in the rendering of its judgment, the Appeals Chamber resolves to determine this issue. 

Pages 1-2:

NOTING that Niyitegeka passed away on 28 March 2018, while serving his sentence in the Republic of Mali;[1]

RECALLING that the Mechanism continues the personal jurisdiction of the ICTR as set out in Article 5 of the Statute of the ICTR ("ICTR Statute");[2]

OBSERVING that Article 5 of the ICTR Statute stipulates that the ICTR "shall have jurisdiction over natural persons";

CONSIDERING that, when read in the context of the object and purpose of the ICTR Statute, "natural persons" is understood as limited to those who are alive;[3]

RECALLING that appeal proceedings before the ICTY and trial proceedings before the ICTY and the ICTR have been terminated following the death of the appellant or the accused for lack of personal jurisdiction;[4]

CONSIDERING that, to uphold principles of due process and fundamental fairness, the Mechanism's jurisdiction ratione personae, consistent with that of the ICTR and the ICTY, is limited to living persons;[5]

FINDING that, in light of. Niyitegeka's death, the Appeals Chamber no longer has jurisdiction to consider the Request;

18. […] While the public interest of protecting the integrity of proceedings through the effective prosecution of offences against the administration of justice cannot be underestimated, it cannot be allowed to undermine the Accused’s rights guaranteed by the principle of legality, which requires sufficient precision and clarity in prescribing modes of criminal liability.[1]

[…]

21. […] [I]n the absence of clear evidence that the doctrine of joint criminal enterprise applies to contempt in customary international law or as a general principle of international law, [the Single Judge] was not satisfied that the Mechanism has jurisdiction over this form of liability for crimes committed in violation of Rule 90 of the Rules.[2] […] [T]he Prosecution’s submissions […] fail to demonstrate the existence of a general principle of law common to all major legal systems or otherwise show error in the Single Judge’s finding.[3]

283.   The Appeals Chamber recalls that the ICTY Trial Chamber in the Galić case determined, by majority, that the ICTY had subject-matter jurisdiction over the crime of terror under Article 3 of the ICTY Statute.[1] The ICTY Appeals Chamber in the same case confirmed, by majority, the ICTY’s jurisdiction over the crime of terror, clarifying that customary international law imposed individual criminal responsibility for violations of the prohibition of terror against the civilian population at the time of the commission of the crimes for which Galić was convicted.[2] The ICTY Appeals Chamber in the D. Milošević case, by majority, subsequently reaffirmed the ICTY’s jurisdiction over the crime of terror.[3] In light of this jurisprudence, the Appeals Chamber considers that the matter of the ICTY’s jurisdiction over the crime of terror was settled by the ICTY Appeals Chamber and was therefore binding on the Trial Chamber in the present case.[4] As it was not open to the Trial Chamber to depart from the existing jurisprudence in this respect, the Appeals Chamber rejects Mladić’s contention that the Trial Chamber erred in failing to give sufficient weight to his submissions that there exist cogent reasons to do so.

284.   As to whether there exist cogent reasons for the Appeals Chamber to depart from the jurisprudence in this regard, the standards of appellate review require Mladić to demonstrate that the decision to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of terror was made on the basis of a wrong legal principle or was “wrongly decided, usually because the judge or judges were ill‑informed about the applicable law”.[5] […] 

285.  A review of the Galić Appeal Judgement reveals that the judges of the majority applied the same legal principles as Judge Schomburg in the Galić case and Judge Liu in the D. Milošević case in reaching their conclusions, namely that: (i) the ICTY has jurisdiction to prosecute a violation of a rule of international humanitarian law under Article 3 of the ICTY Statute when four conditions are fulfilled, including when “the violation of the rule must entail, under customary international law, the individual criminal responsibility of the person breaching the rule” (“Fourth Condition”);[6] and (ii) the fulfilment of the Fourth Condition may be inferred from, inter alia, state practice indicating an intention to criminalize the violation.[7] 

286. In concluding that the Fourth Condition was fulfilled, the judges of the majority in the Galić case considered, inter alia, that: (i) references to terror as a war crime could be found in national and multinational documents as early as 1919 and 1945;[8] (ii) numerous states, including the former Yugoslavia, had criminalized terrorizing civilians as a method of warfare or in a time of war;[9] and (iii) a court in Croatia had entered a conviction under, inter alia, Article 51 of Additional Protocol I and Article 13 of Additional Protocol II for acts of terror against civilians which occurred between March 1991 and January 1993.[10] Judge Schomburg in the Galić case and Judge Liu in the D. Milošević case, by contrast, expressed doubt as to whether the evidence referred to by the majority in the Galić case was sufficiently extensive and uniform to establish customary international law.[11]

287. In the Appeals Chamber’s view, Judge Schomburg in the Galić case and Judge Liu in the D. Milošević case applied the same legal principles as the majority in the Galić case in determining the sufficiency of the evidence of state practice before them and merely disagreed on the result.[12] Bearing in mind that “two judges, both acting reasonably, can come to different conclusions on the basis of the same evidence, both of which are reasonable”,[13] the Appeals Chamber finds that Mladić fails to demonstrate that the finding by the ICTY Appeals Chamber that the ICTY had jurisdiction over the crime of terror was made on the basis of a wrong legal principle or was wrongly decided. In the absence of cogent reasons to depart from the controlling jurisprudence, the Appeals Chamber finds no error in the Trial Chamber’s determination that the ICTY had jurisdiction over the crime of terror in the present case. 

288.   As to Mladić’s contention that the definition of the crime of terror nonetheless violated the principle of nullum crimen sine lege for lack of specificity and foreseeability,[14] the Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber set out the elements of the crime in accordance with the ICTY Appeals Chamber’s definition in the Galić Appeal Judgement, as clarified in the D. Milošević Appeal Judgement.[15] In particular, the Trial Chamber stated that the crime of terror requires proof of, inter alia, acts or threats of violence committed with the primary purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population and directed against the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities causing the victims to suffer grave consequences.[16]

289.   Relying on Judge Shahabuddeen’s separate opinion in the Galić Appeal Judgement stating that “there is neither the required opinio juris nor state practice to support the view that customary international law knows of a comprehensive definition [of terror]”,[17] Mladić argues that the ICTY was not in a position to define the elements of the crime.[18] He further contends that the definition adopted by the ICTY, particularly the requirement that victims suffer “grave consequences” from the acts or threats of violence, did not provide a clear gravity threshold and was improperly determined through a jurisdictional analysis which was developed after the Indictment period.[19]   

290.   The Appeals Chamber recalls that the principle of nullum crimen sine lege requires that a person may only be found guilty of a crime in respect of acts which constituted a violation of a norm which existed at the time of their commission.[20] Moreover, the criminal liability in question must have been sufficiently foreseeable and the law providing for such liability must have been sufficiently accessible at the relevant time.[21] This principle does not, however, prevent a court from interpreting and clarifying the elements of a particular crime, nor does it preclude the progressive development of the law by the court.[22]

291.   The Appeals Chamber notes that Judge Shahabuddeen specified in his separate opinion in the Galić Appeal Judgement that: (i) he agreed with the view that terror as charged is a crime known to customary international law;[23] (ii) the ICTY could recognize that customary international law does know of a core or predominant meaning of “terror” for which there was individual criminal responsibility at the material times;[24] and (iii) he was satisfied that a serious violation of the laws or customs of war within the meaning of Article 3 of the ICTY Statute, namely, by resorting to the core of terror, gives rise to such responsibility, which existed at the time of the alleged acts of the appellant.[25] In the view of the Appeals Chamber, the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Galić and D. Milošević cases merely clarified the elements of the crime of terror, which existed in customary international law, for the purposes of Article 3 of the ICTY Statute.[26] The Appeals Chamber considers that this is consistent with the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, as recalled above. Consequently, Mladić fails to show any error in the Trial Chamber’s application of the elements of the crime of terror as clarified by the ICTY Appeals Chamber.[27]

292.   As to foreseeability, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the accused must be able to appreciate that his conduct was criminal in the sense generally understood, without reference to any specific provision.[28] Although the ICTY did not apply the law of the former Yugoslavia to the definition of the crimes and forms of liability within its jurisdiction, it had recourse to domestic law for the purpose of establishing that the accused could reasonably have known that the offence in question or the offence committed in the way charged in the Indictment was prohibited and punishable.[29]

See also para. 293.

294. […] [I]n the Appeals Chamber’s view, the specification that, for the purposes of Article 3 of the ICTY Statute, the crime of terror also requires that victims suffered “grave consequences”,[30] in no way detracts from the conclusion that Mladić could reasonably have known that the commission of acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population was prohibited and punishable.[31] […]